The objective of this study was to understand the existing practices and attitudes regarding inpatient sleep at the 2020 US News and World Report (USNWR) Honor Roll pediatric (n = 10) and adult (n = 20) hospitals. Section chiefs of Hospital Medicine from these institutions were surveyed and interviewed between June and August 2021. Among 23 of 30 surveyed physician leaders (response rate = 77%), 96% (n = 22) rated patient sleep as important, but only 43% (n = 10) were satisfied with their institutions' efforts. A total of 96% (n = 22) of institutions lack sleep equity practices. Fewer than half (48%) of top hospitals have sleep-friendly practices, with the most common practices including reducing overnight vital sign monitoring (43%), decreasing ambient light in the wards (43%), adjusting lab and medication schedules (35%), and implementing quiet hours (30%). Major themes from qualitative interviews included: importance of universal sleep-friendly cultures, environmental changes, and external incentives to improve patient sleep.

Plants of Commelina communis L. were grown in culture solution to which NaCl was added for 48 h. The solutions were then replaced with normal medium, so that the plants could recover from the stress. The water potential increased almost to that of the controls during 4 h of recovery, but stomatal resistance stayed high. Cytokinin treatment of leaf discs failed to enhance recovery of stomatal aperture, although it enhanced stomatal recovery of identically treated epidermal tissue. Proline levels in leaves correlated well with stomatal resistance. Incubation of epidermal tissue in D‐proline inhibited stomatal opening. NaCl and benzyladenine interacted with the effect of proline, and the effect of abscisic acid and was additive to that of proline.

No abstract

11029 Background: As the number of patients with a cancer diagnosis grows in the United States, there is an increasing need for physician scientists with oncology-related research training to develop new approaches to screening, diagnosis, therapy, and survivorship. A single US medical school developed the National Cancer Institute-funded Scholars in Oncology-Associated Research (SOAR) cancer research education program. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SOAR transitioned from fully in-person in 2019 to virtual in 2020 and hybrid in 2021. This study examines whether the in-person, virtual, or hybrid formats provide better educational experiences as rated by participants. Methods: SOAR includes a seminar series, an 11-week full-time cancer research experience, weekly research cluster group meetings, and tumor board and interprofessional shadowing experiences. In 2019 all program activities were in-person. In 2020 all activities were virtual with the shadowing suspended. In 2021, seminars and tumor boards were virtual, shadowing was in-person, and all other activities were hybrid. Pre- and post-surveys were collected from all participants to assess understanding of oncology and associated medical specialties. How participant understanding of oncology and related specialties changed within each year’s program was analyzed with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine change in understanding between the cohorts. Results: 37 students participated in SOAR (2019 n = 11, 2020 n = 14, 2021 n = 12). Self-reported understanding of oncology as a clinical (p < 0.01 for all) and research discipline (p < 0.01 for all) improved within all three cohorts. There was no significant difference between each cohort’s improvement in research understanding (p = 0.6158). However, there was a trend towards more of an improvement in the in-person cohort (p = 0.0796) for clinical understanding. There was no significant difference between each cohort’s improvement in understanding of oncology-related disciplines such as medical oncology, radiation oncology, pediatric oncology, surgical oncology, and survivorship as both clinical and research disciplines (p > 0.1 for all). Conclusions: A virtual cancer research education program can be as effective as an in-person or hybrid program for research education although it may be suboptimal for learning about clinical oncology. Given the ongoing challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, flexibility is needed in delivering cancer research education programs such as SOAR. With modern research methodology and communications technology, cancer research is becoming increasingly diverse and flexible in terms of research environment. If program leaders are steadfast in their adaptation of research education programs to a virtual or hybrid environment, participant understanding of oncology as a clinical and research discipline remains robust.

With cancer incidence increasing worldwide, physicians with cancer research training are needed. The Scholars in Oncology-Associated Research (SOAR) cancer research education program was developed to train medical students in cancer research while exposing them to the breadth of clinical oncology. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SOAR transitioned from in-person in 2019 to virtual in 2020 and hybrid in 2021. This study investigates positive and negative aspects of the varying educational formats. A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the educational formats. Pre- and post-surveys were collected from participants to assess their understanding of cancer as a clinical and research discipline. Structured interviews were conducted across all three cohorts, and thematic analysis was used to generate themes. A total of 37 students participated in SOAR and completed surveys (2019 n = 11, 2020 n = 14, and 2021 n = 12), and 18 interviews were conducted. Understanding of oncology as a clinical ( p < 0.01 for all) and research discipline ( p < 0.01 for all) improved within all three cohorts. There was no difference between each cohort’s improvement in research understanding ( p = 0.6). There was no difference between each cohort’s understanding of oncology-related disciplines as both clinical and research disciplines ( p > 0.1 for all). Thematic analysis demonstrated that hybrid and in-person formats were favored over a completely virtual one. Our findings demonstrate that a medical student cancer research education program is effective using in-person or hybrid formats for research education, although virtual experiences may be suboptimal to learning about clinical oncology. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13187-023-02291-y.