Search

Background: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has long recognized and championed increasing diversity within the surgical workplace. SAGES initiated the Fundamentals of Leadership Development (FLD) Curriculum to address these needs and to provide surgeon leaders with the necessary tools and skills to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in surgical practice. In 2019, the American College of Surgeons issued a request for anti-racism initiatives which lead to the partnering of the two societies. The primary goal of FLD was to create the first surgeon-focused leadership curriculum dedicated to DEI. The rationale/development of this curriculum and its evaluation/feedback methods are detailed in this White Paper. Methods: The FLD curriculum was developed by a multidisciplinary task force that included surgeons, education experts, and diversity consultants. The curriculum development followed the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) instructional design model and utilized a problem-based learning approach. Competencies were identified, and specific learning objectives and assessments were developed. The implementation of the curriculum was designed to be completed in short intervals (virtual and in-person). Post-course surveys used the Kirkpatrick's model to evaluate the curriculum and provide valuable feedback. Results: The curriculum consisted of interactive online modules, an online discussion forum, and small group interactive sessions focused in three key areas: (1) increasing pipeline of underrepresented individuals in surgical leadership, (2) healthcare equity, and (3) conflict negotiation. By focusing on positive action items and utilizing a problem-solving approach, the curriculum aimed to provide a framework for surgical leaders to make meaningful changes in their institutions and organizations. Conclusion: The FLD curriculum is a novel leadership curriculum that provided surgeon leaders with the knowledge and tools to improve diversity in three areas: pipeline improvement, healthcare equity, and conflict negotiation. Future directions include using pilot course feedback to enhance curricular effectiveness and delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To elicit experiences of patients, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals in intermediate care units (IMCUs) in an academic medical centre in Baltimore, MD related to the challenges and intricacies of multimorbidity management to inform development of a multimorbidity symptom management toolkit. Design: Experience‐based co‐design. Methods: Between July and October 2021, patients aged 55 years and older with multimorbidity admitted to IMCUs at an academic medical centre in Baltimore, Maryland, USA were recruited and interviewed in person. Interdisciplinary healthcare professionals working in the IMCU were interviewed virtually. Participants were asked questions about their role in recognizing and treating symptoms, factors affecting the quality of life, symptom burden and trajectory over time, and strategies that have and have not worked for managing symptoms. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used for analysis. Results: Twenty‐three interviews were conducted: 9 patients, 2 family caregivers, and 12 healthcare professionals. Patients' mean age was 67.5 (±6.5) years, over half (n = 5) were Black or Hispanic, and the average number of comorbidities was 3.67. Five major themes that affect symptom management emerged: (1) the patient–provider relationship; (2) open and honest communication; (3) accessibility of resources during hospitalization and at discharge; (4) caregiver support, training, and education; and (5) care coordination and follow‐up care. Conclusion: Patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals often have similar goals but different priorities for multimorbidity management. It is imperative to identify shared priorities and target holistic interventions that consider patient and caregiver experiences to improve outcomes. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care and Impact: This paper addresses the paucity of research related to the shared experience of disease trajectory and symptom management for people living with multimorbidity. We found that patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals often have similar goals but different care and communication priorities. Understanding differing priorities will help better design interventions to support symptom management so people with multimorbidity can have the best possible quality of life. Reporting Method: We have adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) guidelines in our reporting. Patient or Public Contribution: This study has been designed and implemented with patient and public involvement throughout the process, including community advisory board engagement in the project proposal phase and interview guide development, and member checking in the data collection and analysis phases. The method we chose, experience‐based co‐design, emphasizes the importance of engaging members of a community to act as experts in their own life challenges. In the coming phases of the study, the public will be involved in developing and testing a new intervention, informed by these qualitative interviews and co‐design events, to support symptom management for people with multimorbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the politicization of abortion, professionals working in U.S. health departments (HDs) may not be receptive to communications about abortion, despite often regulating abortion facilities. This paper reports results of a randomized, prospective, observational study to test the effects of e-mail language when disseminating evidence on abortion to HD professionals. Our sample was 302 HD employees who oversee healthcare facilities inspection/regulation in all 50 U.S. state HDs, clustered by HD and randomized into two study groups. In November–December 2019, we sent biweekly e-mails containing links to a website summarizing evidence on abortion facility regulation. E-mails/headers sent to one group emphasized public health values and did not include the word abortion; e-mails/headers to the other group used the word abortion. Primary outcome measures were e-mail open rates and click-through rates. Among 221 participants to whom e-mails were deliverable, the overall open rate was 36%. Open rate was 25% for PH values and 46% for abortion groups (p <.05). Effects were moderated by state abortion policy environment: in both supportive and restrictive environments, participants in the abortion messaging group were statistically more likely to open e-mails than those in the PH values group. There was no difference between groups in states with middle-ground abortion policy environments. Among participants opening at least one e-mail, 19% clicked through to the website, with no significant difference by group. This study demonstrates that repeated targeted e-mail campaigns can reach HD professionals with research summaries. Concerns that communications to HDs should avoid the word abortion are unsupported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]