Collaboration refers to relationships in which two or more independent parties voluntarily decide to work together to address a common purpose. Collaborative arrangements take many forms, from informal, nonbinding agreements for information sharing on topics of mutual interest to formal alliances that entail the creation of new organizational entities, substantial financial investments, and long-term legal commitments. In the health field, the spectrum of collaborative endeavors is wide and diverse. An important segment of this spectrum consists of collaborative arrangements among public health agencies, hospitals, and other parties (e.g., school systems and businesses) that unite to address one or more health issues and improve the culture of health in their communities. Evidence suggests that such collaborative partnerships can have beneficial collective impact. 1-3 Our work focuses on public health-health care collaboration and not the broader issue of public health-health care integration. The history of collaboration between the public health and hospital sectors is mixed at best; although close, mutually beneficial partnerships exist in some U.S. communities, they are not prevalent across the United States. We offer our perspective on past collaboration between the public health and hospital sectors, review emerging patterns, and discuss future prospects for these patterns.

No abstract

Oversight of human subject research has evolved considerably since its inception. However, previous studies identified a lack of consistency of institutional review board (IRB) determination for the type of review required and whether informed consent is necessary, especially for prospective observational studies, which pose minimal risk of harm. We hypothesized that there is significant inter-institution variation in IRB requirements for the type of review and necessity of informed consent, especially for prospective observational trials without blood/tissue utilization. We also sought to describe investigators’ and IRB members’ attitudes toward the type of review and need for consent. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) and IRB members were sent an electronic survey on IRB review and informed consent requirement. We performed descriptive analyses as well as Fisher’s exact test to determine differences between EAST and IRB members’ responses. The response rate for EAST members from 113 institutions was 13.5%, whereas a convenience sample of IRB members from 14 institutions had a response rate of 64.4%. Requirement for full IRB review for retrospective studies using patient identifiers was reported by zero IRB member compared with 13.1% of EAST members (p=0.05). Regarding prospective observational trials without blood/tissue collection, 48.1% of EAST members reported their institutions required a full IRB review compared with 9.5% of IRB members (p=0.01). For prospective observational trials with blood/tissue collection, 80% of EAST members indicated requirement to submit a full IRB review compared with only 13.6% of IRB members (p<0.001). Most EAST members (78.6%) stated that informed consent is not ethically necessary in prospective observational trials without blood/tissue collection, whereas most IRB members thought that informed consent was ethically necessary (63.6%, p<0.001). There is significant variation in perception and practice regarding the level of review for prospective observational studies and whether informed consent is necessary. We recommend future interdisciplinary efforts between researchers and IRBs should occur to better standardize local IRB efforts.Level of evidenceIV.

Background Mentorship programs in surgery are utilized to overcome barriers to clinical and academic productivity, research success, and work-life balance. We sought to determine if the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Mentoring Program has met its goals of fostering academic and personal growth in young acute care surgeons. Methods We conducted a systematic program evaluation of EAST Mentoring Program’s first four years. Demographic information was collected from EAST records, mentorship program applications, and mentee-mentor career development plans. We reviewed the career development plans for thematic commonalities and results of a structured, online questionnaire distributed since program inception. A mixed methods approach was used to better understand the program goals from both mentee and mentor perspectives, as well as attitudes and barriers regarding the perceived success of this career development program. Results During 2012–2015, 65 mentoring dyads were paired and 60 completed the program. Of 184 surveys distributed, 108 were returned (57% response rate). Respondents were evenly distributed between mentees and mentors (53 vs. 55, p=0.768). In participant surveys, mentoring relationships were viewed to focus on research (45%), “sticky situations” [e.g., communication, work-life balance] (27%), education (18%), or administrative issues (10%). Mentees were more focused on research and education vs. mentors (74% vs. 50%, p=0.040). Mentees felt that goals were “always” or “usually” met vs. mentors (89% vs. 77% p= 0.096). Two barriers to successful mentorship included time and communication, with most pairs communicating by email. Most respondents (91%) planned to continue the relationship beyond the EAST Mentoring Program and recommended the experience to colleagues. Conclusions Mentee satisfaction with the EAST Mentoring Program was high. Mentoring is a beneficial tool to promote success amongst EAST’s young members, but differences exist between mentee and mentor perceptions. Revising communication expectations and time commitment to improve career development may help our young acute care surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V STUDY TYPE Epidemiological