BackgroundHumanistic care in medicine has shown to improve healthcare outcomes. Language barriers are a significant obstacle to humanistic care, and trained medical interpreters have demonstrated to effectively bridge the gap for the vulnerable limited English proficiency (LEP) patient population. One way in which medical schools can train more humanistic physicians and provide language access is through the implementation of programs to train bilingual medical students as medical interpreters. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate whether such training had an impact on bilingual medical student’s interpretation skills and humanistic traits.MethodsBetween 2015 and 2017, whole-day (~ 8 h) workshops on medical interpretation were offered periodically to 80 bilingual medical students at the Penn State College of Medicine. Students completed a series of questionnaires before and after the training that assessed the program’s effectiveness and its overall impact on interpretation skills and humanistic traits. Students also had the opportunity to become certified medical interpreters.ResultsThe 80 student participants were first- to third- year medical students representing 21 languages. Following training, most students felt more confident interpreting (98%) and more empathetic towards LEP patients (87.5%). Students’ scores in the multiple-choice questions about medical interpretation/role of the interpreter were also significantly improved (Chi-Square test, p < 0.05). All students who decided to take the exam were able to successfully become certified interpreters. Ninety-two percent of participants reported they would recommend the program and would be willing to serve as a future “coaches” for interpreter training workshops delivered to peer students.ConclusionsOur program was successful in increasing self-reported measures of empathy and humanism in medical students. Our data suggests that implementation of medical interpreter training programs can be a successful strategy to develop of humanism in medical students, and aid in the development of sustainable language access for LEP patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1254-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The different needles and methods used in the prick test give rise to disparate results. This has significance when carrying out multi-centre studies and when using the technique in the standardization of allergenic extracts. With test reliability as our objective, prick tests were carried out on 30 subjects: 10 patients sensitive to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus received a glycerine extract of known allergenic potency, 10 healthy individuals 2.5% codeine phosphate in a glycerine solution, and another 10, histamine 1/1000. The total prick tests per individual was 27 with each of the needles employed (Allergy Pricker, the Morrow-Brown needle and Insulin needle in accordance with Pepy's procedure). The tests were carried out systematically by three different testers, and the total number of prick tests performed was 810. With the Allergy Pricker, no differences were observed among results obtained by the same tester, nor when the results of the three testers were compared. With the Morrow-Brown needle, the results varied in the same person and from one tester to another, and on many occasions the test was negative. With the Pepys method, no falsely negative results were obtained, but there was considerable variation in the size of the wheal. The variation coefficient is 41% with the Allergy Pricker, and 115% and 64% with the Morrow-Brown and Pepys method, respectively. In conclusion, the results obtained clearly indicate that the highest degree of reproducibility is obtained with the Allergy Pricker.

Despite its widespread clinical use, the β-adrenergic receptor antagonist esmolol hydrochloride is not commonly used in human physiology research, and the effective dose of esmolol (compared with the nonselective β-blocker propranolol) is unclear. In four separate studies we used cycle ergometry exercise and infusions of isoproterenol and epinephrine to test the heart rate (HR)-lowering effect of esmolol compared with propranolol and saline in healthy humans. In , both esmolol (ΔHR 57 ± 6 beats/min) and propranolol (ΔHR 56 ± 7 beats/min) attenuated exercise tachycardia compared with saline (ΔHR 88 ± 17 beats/min). In, we found that the HR response to exercise was similar at 5 min (ΔHR 57 ± 9 beats/min) and 60 min (ΔHR 55 ± 9 beats/min) after initiation of the esmolol maintenance infusion. In , we confirmed that the HR-lowering effect of esmolol disappeared 45 min after termination of the maintenance infusion. In, changes in femoral blood flow and hematological parameters in response to epinephrine infusion were not different between esmolol and saline infusion, indicating that our esmolol infusion paradigm does not block β-receptors. Collectively, our data indicate that infusion of ~160 mg of esmolol (range 110-200 mg in the 5 min before exercise) acutely and selectively blocks β-receptors in healthy humans. Additionally, β-receptors remain blocked 60 min later if a maintenance infusion of ~0.2 mg·kg total body mass·min- continues. The current data lay the foundation for future studies to evaluate β- vs. β-receptor control of the circulation in humans. We used cycle ergometry exercise and infusions of isoproterenol and epinephrine to test the heart rate-lowering effect of esmolol compared with propranolol and saline in healthy humans. Collectively, our data indicate that infusion of ~160 mg of esmolol (range 110-200 mg in the 5 min before exercise) acutely and selectively blocks β1-adrenergic receptors. These infusion parameters can be used in future experiments to evaluate β1- vs. β2-receptor control of the circulation in humans.

Myocardial oxygen supply and demand mismatch is fundamental to the pathophysiology of ischemia and infarction. The sympathetic nervous system, through α‐adrenergic receptors and β‐adrenergic receptors, influences both myocardial oxygen supply and demand. In animal models, mechanistic studies have established that adrenergic receptors contribute to coronary vascular tone. The purpose of this laboratory study was to noninvasively quantify coronary responses to adrenergic receptor stimulation in humans. Fourteen healthy volunteers (11 men and 3 women) performed isometric handgrip exercise to fatigue followed by intravenous infusion of isoproterenol. A subset of individuals also received infusions of phenylephrine (n = 6), terbutaline (n = 10), and epinephrine (n = 4); all dosages were based on fat‐free mass and were infused slowly to achieve steady‐state. The left anterior descending coronary artery was visualized using Doppler echocardiography. Beat‐by‐beat heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), peak diastolic coronary velocity (CBVpeak), and coronary velocity time integral were calculated. Data are presented as M ± SD. Isometric handgrip elicited significant increases in BP, HR, and CBVpeak (from 23.3 ± 5.3 to 34.5 ± 9.9 cm/sec). Isoproterenol raised HR and CBVpeak (from 22.6 ± 4.8 to 43.9 ± 12.4 cm/sec). Terbutaline and epinephrine evoked coronary hyperemia whereas phenylephrine did not significantly alter CBVpeak. Different indices of coronary hyperemia (changes in CBVpeak and velocity time integral) were significantly correlated (R = 0.803). The current data indicate that coronary hyperemia occurs in healthy humans in response to isometric handgrip exercise and low‐dose, steady‐state infusions of isoproterenol, terbutaline, and epinephrine. The contribution of β1 versus β2 receptors to coronary hyperemia remains to be determined. In this echocardiographic study, we demonstrate that coronary blood flow increases when β‐adrenergic receptors are stimulated (i.e., during exercise and different intravenous infusions). Our infusion paradigms and beat‐by‐beat imaging methodologies can be used in future studies to evaluate age‐, sex‐, and disease‐ differences in adrenergic control of coronary blood flow.

No abstract