RESUMEN

Background: Rational prescription writing is an important skill to master during internship. This Quality Improvement (QI) project aimed to understand the state of prescription writing among interns posted in the Department of Psychiatry, analyze the causes responsible for errors in prescription writing and bring about a change in the current practice. Methods: The MBBS interns are posted in the Department of Psychiatry for 15 days. During day 1 to day 5 of their posting, a pre intervention phase was conducted wherein prescriptions written by interns in the Department of Psychiatry were collected. The prescriptions were scored based on 14 criteria which were selected based on World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines and Medical Council of India (MCI) ideal prescription format. During PDSA (Plan Do Study Act) Cycle 1, an educational handout was distributed to the interns containing the MCI ideal prescription format and WHO guidelines regarding prescription writing. The brochure was also verbally explained to the interns. From day 7 to day 15 of their posting, prescriptions written by the interns were collected. The prescriptions were scored using the same criteria. Results: During the pre intervention phase the mean total score of prescriptions was 9.54 ± 1.003. There was a significant improvement in the mean total score to 10.26 ± 0.746. There was a 7.54% improvement. There was also a significant improvement in several individual criteria. Conclusions: The first PDSA cycle was successful in improving the quality of prescription writing among interns posted in the Department of Psychiatry. There is a need to implement more PDSA cycles to improve the quality still further.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Communicating with scientific journals is a central part of the publication process, yet sparsely covered in the medical literature. A cover letter to the editor(s) should always accompany new submissions, whereas response (or rebuttal) letters relate to revisions and replying to referees' comments following peer review. This review describes the two types of letters, focusing on content, style, and structure, and provides helpful tips for handling challenging reviewer scenarios.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Reporting standards are essential to health research as they improve accuracy and transparency. Over time, significant changes have occurred to the requirements for reporting research to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting across a range of study domains and foster methodological rigor. The establishment of the Declaration of Helsinki, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) are just a few of the historic initiatives that have increased research transparency. Through enhanced discoverability, statistical analysis facilitation, article quality enhancement, and language barrier reduction, artificial intelligence (AI)-in particular, large language models like ChatGPT-has transformed academic writing. However, problems with errors that could occur and the need for transparency while utilizing AI tools still exist. Modifying reporting rules to include AI-driven writing tools such as ChatGPT is ethically and practically challenging. In academic writing, precautions for truth, privacy, and responsibility are necessary due to concerns about biases, openness, data limits, and potential legal ramifications. The CONSORT-AI and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-AI Steering Group expands the CONSORT guidelines for AI clinical trials-new checklists like METRICS and CLEAR help to promote transparency in AI studies. Responsible usage of technology in research and writing software adoption requires interdisciplinary collaboration and ethical assessment. This study explores the impact of AI technologies, specifically ChatGPT, on past reporting standards and the need for revised guidelines for open, reproducible, and robust scientific publications.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT: Ensuring students are prepared for the Physician Assistant National Certification Exam (PANCE) is an institutional priority for all physician assistant programs. While many factors predicting PANCE performance have been investigated, exploration and discussions of interventions to improve PANCE performance are limited. Repeated exposure to board-style questions has been shown to improve board scores in similar populations. Currently, existing question banks cannot be used to generate secure summative examinations, and commercial question banks may perpetuate inequitable access among physician assistant (PA) students. To address this issue, the University of Oklahoma Physician Assistant program used a community of practice model to create a mock board exam writing group. The group was created to facilitate the development of 9 PANCE-style exams to bolster students' clinical preparedness and PANCE performance. These writing groups also provided a platform for junior faculty to receive feedback and guidance from senior colleagues, thus facilitating and promoting mentorship. This article highlights the potential benefits of mock board exam writing groups in PA education and provides insight into their development and implementation.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Families of critically ill patients may benefit from receiving a written update of patient care each day. Our objective was to develop a system to facilitate care provider creation of written updates and to determine the effect of implementing this process on the care provider experience. DESIGN: The experiences of ICU care providers (nurses, advanced practice providers, and physicians) were measured monthly during a 3-month pre-intervention and a 3-month intervention period. During the intervention period, written updates were sent to families each day and posted in the electronic medical record. Study investigators assisted by editing and distributing the written communication to families. SETTING: An urban academic medical center in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nurse-Physician Collaboration Scale (NPCS) and Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). RESULTS: Over the 3-month intervention period, care providers created written communication for families of 152 patients (average 5 ICU days per family). NPCS scores among the 65 participating care providers were significantly lower, indicating greater collaboration during the intervention vs. pre-intervention period: 49.9 (95 % CI 46.4-53.6) vs. 55.4 (95 % CI 51.5-59.3), p = 0.002. MBI scores were similar during the intervention vs. pre-intervention periods. A subset of care providers participated in individual interviews. Care providers reported that the process of creating written communication was acceptable and had clear benefits for both families and the medical team. CONCLUSIONS: Use of written communication as a supplement to verbal communication improves collaboration among ICU care providers without affecting symptoms of burnout. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We created a system to facilitate written communication with ICU families that was acceptable to care providers and improved aspects of their experience. In the future, use of written communication can be enhanced with refinements to the process that reduce the time spent creating written updates while highlighting the benefits to families and care providers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: to map the scientific literature regarding the use of the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, ChatGPT, in academic writing in health. METHOD: this was a scoping review, following the JBI methodology. Conventional databases and gray literature were included. The selection of studies was applied after removing duplicates and individual and paired evaluation. Data were extracted based on an elaborate script, and presented in a descriptive, tabular and graphical format. RESULTS: the analysis of the 49 selected articles revealed that ChatGPT is a versatile tool, contributing to scientific production, description of medical procedures and preparation of summaries aligned with the standards of scientific journals. Its application has been shown to improve the clarity of writing and benefits areas such as innovation and automation. Risks were also observed, such as the possibility of lack of originality and ethical issues. Future perspectives highlight the need for adequate regulation, agile adaptation and the search for an ethical balance in incorporating ChatGPT into academic writing. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT presents transformative potential in academic writing in health. However, its adoption requires rigorous human supervision, solid regulation, and transparent guidelines to ensure its responsible and beneficial use by the scientific community.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: Contributing to the evidence base, by disseminating findings through written products such as journal articles, is a core competency for public health practitioners. Disseminating practice-based evidence that supports improving cardiovascular health is necessary for filling literature gaps, generating health policies and laws, and translating evidence-based strategies into practice. However, a gap exists in the dissemination of practice-based evidence in public health. Public health practitioners face various dissemination barriers (eg, lack of time and resources, staff turnover) which, more recently, were compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. PROGRAM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP) partnered with the National Network of Public Health Institutes to implement a multimodal approach to build writing capacity among recipients funded by three DHDSP cooperative agreements. This project aimed to enhance public health practitioners' capacity to translate and disseminate their evaluation findings. IMPLEMENTATION: Internal evaluation technical assistance expertise and external subject matter experts helped to implement this project and to develop tailored multimodal capacity-building activities. These activities included online peer-to-peer discussion posts, virtual writing workshops, resource documents, one-to-one writing coaching sessions, an online toolkit, and a supplemental issue in a peer-reviewed journal. EVALUATION: Findings from an informal process evaluation demonstrate positive results. Most participants were engaged and satisfied with the project's activities. Across eight workshops, participants reported increased knowledge (≥94%) and enhanced confidence in writing (≥98%). The majority of participants (83%) reported that disseminating evaluation findings improved program implementation. Notably, 30 abstracts were submitted for a journal supplement and 23 articles were submitted for consideration. DISCUSSION: This multimodal approach serves as a promising model that enhances public health practitioners' capacity to disseminate evaluation findings during times of evolving health needs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

There is an increasing number of PhD students in health sciences, but no formal reporting guideline for writing a thesis exists. This review provides a practical guide with an overview of the article-based/synopsis PhD thesis that consists of eight parts: 1) initial formalities, 2) introduction, 3) methodological considerations, 4) study presentations, 5) discussion, 6) conclusion, 7) perspectives, and 8) concluding formalities. It is elaborated with detailed information, practical advice, and a template, so the thesis complies with the demands of the Danish Graduate Schools of Health Sciences.

Asunto(s)