Low dose CT (LDCT) for lung cancer screening is an evidence-based, guideline recommended, and Medicare approved test but uptake requires further study. We therefore conducted patient and provider surveys to elucidate factors associated with utilization. Patients referred for LDCT at an academic medical center were questioned about their attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs on lung cancer screening. Adherent patients were defined as those who met screening eligibility criteria and completed a LDCT. Referring primary care providers within this same medical system were surveyed in parallel about their practice patterns, attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about screening. Eighty patients responded (36%), 48 of whom were adherent. Among responders, non-Hispanic patients (p = 0.04) were more adherent. Adherent respondents believed that CT technology is accurate and early detection is useful, and they trusted their providers. A majority of non-adherent patients (79%) self-reported an intention to obtain a LDCT in the future. Of 36 of 87 (41%) responding providers, only 31% knew the correct lung cancer screening eligibility criteria, which led to a 37% inappropriate referral rate from 2013 to 2015. Yet, 75% had initiated lung cancer screening discussions, 64% thought screening was at least moderately effective, and 82% were interested in learning more of the 33 providers responding to these questions. Overall, patients were motivated and providers engaged to screen for lung cancer by LDCT. Non-adherent patient “procrastinators” were motivated to undergo screening in the future. Additional follow through on non-adherence may enhance screening uptake, and raising awareness for screening eligibility through provider education may reduce inappropriate referrals.

The purpose of our study was to determine the incidence of hearing loss and to describe the hearing impairment and the possible contributing factors, responsible for sensori neural hearing loss in chronic renal failure (CRF) patients. This was a prospective study carried out on 50 cases of CRF attending otorhinolaryngological services for hearing disturbance and on 50 healthy volunteers for control study, having the same inclusion criteria except (does not suffering with CRF) having normal renal function tests. These volunteers attended the ENT OPD, for oto-rhino-laryngological services but not for hearing problems. 14 (28%) out of 50 cases of CRF had sensori neural hearing loss of moderate to severe degree in the high frequency range which was bilateral and symmetrical, while in control group the incidence of sensorineural hearing loss was only 6%.

A total of 61 students responded, representing a response rate of 88.4 per cent, with a majority of respondents (73.7%) from URM backgrounds. An overwhelming majority of students agreed (with a Likert rating of 4 or 5) that the ICM programme increased their interest in becoming a physician (n = 56, 91.8%). Students reported shadowing patient-student-physician interactions to be the most useful (n = 60, 98.4%), and indicated that they felt that they would be more likely to lead to serving the local community as part of their future careers (n = 52, 85.3%). Of the students that were eligible to apply to medical school (n = 13), a majority (n = 11, 84.6%) have applied to medical school. URM enrolment in medical schools within the USA has remained stagnant in recent years DISCUSSION: Use of a community medicine immersion programme may help encourage secondary students from URM backgrounds to gain the confidence to pursue a career in medicine and serve their communities. Further examination of these programmes may yield novel insights into recruiting URM students to medicine.

BackgroundInternal Medicine residents experience conflict between inpatient and outpatient medicine responsibilities. Outpatient “between visit” responsibilities such as reviewing lab and imaging data, responding to medication refill requests and replying to patient inquiries compete for time and attention with inpatient duties. By examining Electronic Health Record (EHR) audits, our study quantitatively describes this balance between competing responsibilities, focusing on housestaff participation with “between visit” outpatient responsibilities.MethodsWe examined EHR log-in data from 2012–2013 for 41 residents (R1 to R3) assigned to a large academic center’s continuity clinic. From the EHR log-in data, we examined housestaff compliance with “between visit” tasks, based on official clinic standards.We used generalized estimating equations to evaluate housestaff compliance with between visit tasks and amount of time spent on tasks. We examined the relationship between compliance with between visit tasks and resident year of training, rotation type (elective or required) and interest in primary care.ResultsHousestaff compliance with logging in to complete “between visit” tasks varied significantly depending on rotation, with overall compliance of 45 % during core inpatient rotations compared to 68 % during electives (p = 0.01). Compliance did not significantly vary by interest in primary care or training level. Once logged in, housestaff spent a mean 53 min per week logged in while on electives, compared to 55 min on required rotations (p = 0.90).ConclusionsOur study quantitatively highlights the difficulty of attending to outpatient responsibilities during busy core inpatient rotations, which comprise the bulk of residency at our institution and at others. Our results reinforce the need to continue development and study of innovative systems for coverage of “between visit” responsibilities, including shared coverage models among multiple residents and shared coverage models between residents and clinic attendings, both of which require a balance between clinic efficiency and resident ownership, autonomy and learning.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent county shelter-in-place order forced the Cardinal Free Clinics (CFCs), Stanford University’s 2 student-run free clinics, to close in March 2020. As student-run free clinics adhering to university-guided COVID policies, we have not been able to see patients in person since March of 2020. However, the closure of our in-person operations provided our student management team with an opportunity to innovate. In consultation with Stanford’s Telehealth team and educators, we rapidly developed a telehealth clinic model for our patients. We adapted available telehealth guidelines to meet our patient care needs and educational objectives, which manifested in 3 key innovations: reconfigured clinic operations, an evidence-based social needs screen to more effectively assess and address social needs alongside medical needs, and a new telehealth training module for student volunteers. After 6 months of piloting our telehealth services, we believe that these changes have made our services and operations more robust and provided benefit to both our patients and volunteers. Despite an uncertain and evolving public health landscape, we are confident that these developments will strengthen the future operations of the CFCs.