There are over 1 million hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) annually in the United States alone, and a similar number has been reported in Europe. Recent clinical trials investigating novel therapies in patients with hospitalized HF (HHF) have been negative, and the post-discharge event rate remains unacceptably high. The lack of success with HHF trials stem from problems with understanding the study drug, matching the drug to the appropriate HF subgroup, and study execution. Related to the concept of study execution is the importance of including appropriate study sites in HHF trials. Often overlooked issues include consideration of the geographic region and the number of patients enrolled at each study center. Marked differences in baseline patient co-morbidities, serum biomarkers, treatment utilization and outcomes have been demonstrated across geographic regions. Furthermore, patients from sites with low recruitment may have worse outcomes compared to sites with higher enrollment patterns. Consequently, sites with poor trial enrollment may influence key patient end points and likely do not justify the costs of site training and maintenance. Accordingly, there is an unmet need to develop strategies to identify the right study sites that have acceptable patient quantity and quality. Potential approaches include, but are not limited to, establishing a pre-trial registry, developing site performance metrics, identifying a local regionally involved leader and bolstering recruitment incentives. This manuscript summarizes the roundtable discussion hosted by the Food and Drug Administration between members of academia, the National Institutes of Health, industry partners, contract research organizations and academic research organizations on the importance of selecting optimal sites for successful trials in HHF.

In this article we explore the effect of encounters with rudeness on the tendency to engage in anchoring, one of the most robust and widespread cognitive biases. Integrating the self-immersion framework with the selective accessibility model (SAM), we propose that rudeness-induced negative arousal will narrow individuals' perspectives in a way that will make anchoring more likely. Additionally, we posit that perspective taking and information elaboration will attenuate the effect of rudeness on both negative arousal and subsequent anchoring. Across four experimental studies, we test the impact of exposure to rudeness on anchoring as manifested in a variety of tasks (medical diagnosis, judgment tasks, and negotiation). In a pilot study, we find that rudeness is associated with anchoring among a group of medical students making a medical diagnosis. In Study 1, we show that negative arousal mediates the effect of rudeness on anchoring among medical residents treating a patient, and that perspective taking moderates these effects. Study 2 replicates the results of Study 1 using a common anchoring task, and Study 3 builds on these results by replicating them in a negotiation setting and testing information elaboration as a boundary condition. Across the four studies, we find consistent evidence that rudeness-induced negative arousal leads to anchoring, and that these effects can be mitigated by perspective taking and information elaboration.

This rotation allowed for teaching and resident assessment to occur in a way that facilitated resident education in several of the skills required to meet specific milestones. Resident physicians are able to foster NTS and build a framework for clinical leadership when completing a 2-week senior elective as an OR manager.