In this study, we evaluated the status of and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination of healthcare workers in two major hospital systems (academic and private) in Southern California. Responses were collected via an anonymous and voluntary survey from a total of 2491 participants, including nurses, physicians, other allied health professionals, and administrators. Among the 2491 participants that had been offered the vaccine at the time of the study, 2103 (84%) were vaccinated. The bulk of the participants were middle-aged college-educated White (73%), non-Hispanic women (77%), and nursing was the most represented medical occupation (35%). Political affiliation, education level, and income were shown to be significant factors associated with vaccination status. Our data suggest that the current allocation of healthcare workers into dichotomous groups such as “anti-vaccine vs. pro-vaccine” may be inadequate in accurately tailoring vaccine uptake interventions. We found that healthcare workers that have yet to receive the COVID-19 vaccine likely belong to one of four categories: the misinformed, the undecided, the uninformed, or the unconcerned. This diversity in vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers highlights the importance of targeted intervention to increase vaccine confidence. Regardless of governmental vaccine mandates, addressing the root causes contributing to vaccine hesitancy continues to be of utmost importance.

Background: Discrepancies exist between what resident and attending physicians perceive as adequate supervision. We documented current practices in a university-based, categoric, internal medicine residency to characterize these discrepancies and the types of mixed messages that are communicated to residents, as well as to assess their potential effect on resident supervision and patient safety. Methods: We surveyed residents and attending physicians separately about their current attitudes and behaviors regarding resident supervision. Both groups responded to 2 different measures of resident supervision: (1) 6 clinical vignettes that involved patient safety concerns, and (2) 9 frequently reported phrases communicated by attending physicians to residents before leaving the hospital during on-call admission days. Results: There were clear and substantial differences between the perceptions of resident and attending physicians about when the supervising attending physician should be notified in each of the 6 vignettes. For example, 85% of attending physicians reported they wanted to be notified of an unexpected pneumothorax that required chest tube placement, but only 31% of resident physicians said they would call their attending physician during those circumstances. Common phrases, such as “page me if you need me,” resulted in approximately 50% of residents reporting they would “rarely” or “never” call and another 41% reporting they would only “sometimes” call their attending physicians. Conclusions: Our study found that attending physicians reported they would want more frequent communication and closer supervision than routinely perceived by resident physicians. Although this discrepancy exists, commonly used phrases, such as “page me if you need me,” rarely resulted in a change in resident behavior, and attending physicians appeared to be aware of the ineffectiveness of these statements. These mixed messages may increase the difficulty of balancing the dual goals of appropriate attending supervision and progressive independence during residency training.

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) unresponsive to the standard treatments of metronidazole and oral vancomycin requires aggressive medical management and possible surgical intervention including colectomy. Intracolonic vancomycin therapy has been reported to be particularly promising in the setting of severe CDI in the presence of ileus. This is a descriptive case series exploring the effect of adjunctive intracolonic vancomycin therapy on the morbidity and mortality in patients with moderate to severe CDI. A retrospective chart review was conducted on 696 patients with CDI seen at a single institution. Each patient was assigned a severity score and 127 patients with moderate to severe CDI were identified. We describe the clinical presentation, risk factors and hospital course comparing those that received adjunctive intracolonic vancomycin to those that only received standard therapy. The group that received adjunctive intracolonic vancomycin had higher rates of toxic megacolon, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and colectomy, and yet maintained a similar mortality rate as the group that received only standard treatment. The intracolonic vancomycin group experienced more complications but showed a similar mortality rate to the standard therapy group, suggesting that intracolonic vancomycin may impart a protective effect. This study adds further evidence for the need of a randomized controlled study using intracolonic vancomycin as adjunctive therapy in patients presenting with severe CDI.

Problem: Although many studies have examined the importance of reflective writing in medical education, there is a scarcity of evidence for any particular intervention to improve the quality of reflection among medical students. Historically, students on our Internal Medicine clerkship were given a written reflection assignment without explanation of critical reflection. To facilitate the development of deeper reflection, a new curriculum was introduced. Intervention: A 90-minute workshop on critical reflection was introduced at the start of the Internal Medicine rotation. Key components included a video clip stimulating reflection, small- and large-group exercises, and a faculty member's personal reflection. Students were then asked to write two reflection papers. To minimize bias, the names and dates were removed from each reflection paper and combined with reflection papers from a historical control group. Four faculty used a previously validated tool, the REFLECT rubric, to independently grade the written reflection papers as nonreflective (as a 1), thoughtful action (2), reflection (3), or critical reflection (4). The final grade of each paper was determined by consensus among the graders. Context: The 90-minute workshop was given once at the beginning of each 10-week requisite Internal Medicine clerkship to 3rd-year medical students. Outcome: One hundred fifty-five papers written after the workshop were compared to 155 papers from a preworkshop historical control group. The primary analysis showed the number of students writing “critical reflection” papers increased after the educational intervention, from 14% to 47% (p = .0002). The effect size using Cohen's d was 0.62. The kappa statistic used to measure interrater reliability among the four graders was 0.37. Lessons Learned: Through a 90-minute reflection workshop more 3rd-year students were able to demonstrate the potential for “critical reflection” compared to previous students not exposed to this teaching. Strengths include the large sample size of written reflection papers submitted throughout an entire academic year and blinded grading of papers that minimized bias. The low interrater reliability is a limitation. We believe this curriculum could readily be adapted to a clerkship seeking to enhance learner reflection.

Hospital medical errors that result in patient harm and death are largely identified as system failures. Most hospitals lack the tools to effectively identify most system errors. Traditional methods used in many hospitals, such as incident reporting (IR), departmental morbidity and mortality conferences, and root cause analysis committees, are often flawed by under reporting. We introduced the Code S designation into our hospital's ongoing physician peer review process as an additional and innovative way to identify system errors that contributed to adverse clinical outcomes. The authors conducted a retrospective review of all peer review cases from January 2008 to December 2011 and determined the quantity and type of system errors that occurred. System errors were categorized based on a modified 5M model which was adapted to reflect system errors encountered in healthcare. The Code S designation discovered 204 system errors that otherwise may not have previously been identified. The addition of the Code S designation to the peer review process can be readily adopted by other healthcare organizations as another tool to help identify, quantify and categorize system errors, and promote hospital-wide process improvements to decrease errors and improve patient safety.

For its clinical, epidemiologic, educational, and health services research, evaluation, administrative, regulatory, and accreditation purposes, the perceptions survey is a data collection tool that asks observers to describe perceptions of their experiences with a defined phenomenon of interest. In practice, these surveys are often subject to criticism for not having been thoroughly evaluated before its first application using a consistent and comprehensive set of criteria for validity and reliability. This paper introduces a 9-criteria framework to assess perceptions surveys that integrates criteria from multiple evaluation sources. The 9-criteria framework was applied to data from the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Learners’ Perceptions Survey (LPS) that had been administered to national and local samples, and from findings obtained through a literature review involving LPS survey data. We show that the LPS is a robust tool that may serve as a model for design and validation of other perceptions surveys. Findings underscore the importance of using all nine criteria to validate perceptions survey data.