Purpose: Residents and attendings agree on the importance of feedback to resident education. However, while faculty report providing frequent feedback, residents often do not perceive receiving it, particularly in the context of teaching. Given the nuanced differences between feedback and teaching, we aimed to explore resident and attending perceptions of feedback and teaching in the clinical setting. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of internal medicine residents and attendings from December 2018 through March 2019 at the Massachusetts General Hospital to investigate perceptions of feedback in the inpatient clinical setting. Residents and faculty were recruited to participate in focus groups. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis to explore perspectives and barriers to feedback provision and identification. Results: Five focus groups included 33 total participants in 3 attending (n=20) and 2 resident (n=13) groups. Thematic analysis of focus group transcripts identified 7 themes which organized into 3 thematic categories: (1) disentangling feedback and teaching, (2) delivering high-quality feedback, and (3) experiencing feedback in the group setting. Residents and attendings highlighted important themes in discriminating feedback from teaching. They indicated that while feedback is reactive in response to an action or behavior, teaching is proactive and oriented toward future endeavors. Conclusion Confusion between the critical concepts of teaching and feedback may be minimized by allowing them to each have their intended impact, either in response to prior events or aimed toward those yet to take place.

OBJECTIVE: A growing interest in extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) as a rescue strategy for refractory adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) currently exists. This study aims to determine current standards of care and practice variation for ECPR patients in the USA and Korea. METHODS: In December 2015, we surveyed centers from the Korean Hypothermia Network (KORHN) Investigators and the US National Post-Arrest Research Consortium (NPARC) on current targeted temperature management and ECPR practices. This project analyzes the subsection of questions addressing ECPR practices. We summarized survey results using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 9 KORHN and 4 NPARC centers reported having ECPR programs and had complete survey data available. Two KORHN centers utilized extracorporeal membrane oxygenation only for postarrest circulatory support in patients with refractory shock and were excluded from further analysis. Centers with available ECPR generally saw a high volume of OHCA patients (10/11 centers care for >75 OHCA a year). Location of, and providers trained for cannulation varied across centers. All centers in both countries (KORHN 7/7, NPARC 4/4) treated comatose ECPR patients with targeted temperature management. All NPARC centers and four of seven KORHN centers reported having a standardized hospital protocol for ECPR. Upper age cutoff for eligibility ranged from 60 to 75 years. No absolute contraindications were unanimous among centers. CONCLUSION: A wide variability in practice patterns exist between centers performing ECPR for refractory OHCA in the US and Korea. Standardized protocols and shared research databases might inform best practices, improve outcomes, and provide a foundation for prospective studies.
Adult* ; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation* ; Catheterization ; Coma ; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ; Heart Arrest ; Humans ; Hypothermia ; Korea ; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest* ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Prospective Studies ; Research Personnel ; Shock ; Standard of Care

Background: and Purpose Recent studies suggested an increased incidence of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We evaluated the volume of CVT hospitalization and in-hospital mortality during the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the preceding year. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study of 171 stroke centers from 49 countries. We recorded COVID-19 admission volumes, CVT hospitalization, and CVT in-hospital mortality from January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. CVT diagnoses were identified by International Classification of Disease-10 (ICD-10) codes or stroke databases. We additionally sought to compare the same metrics in the first 5 months of 2021 compared to the corresponding months in 2019 and 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04934020). Results: There were 2,313 CVT admissions across the 1-year pre-pandemic (2019) and pandemic year (2020); no differences in CVT volume or CVT mortality were observed. During the first 5 months of 2021, there was an increase in CVT volumes compared to 2019 (27.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.2 to 32.0; P<0.0001) and 2020 (41.4%; 95% CI, 37.0 to 46.0; P<0.0001). A COVID-19 diagnosis was present in 7.6% (132/1,738) of CVT hospitalizations. CVT was present in 0.04% (103/292,080) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. During the first pandemic year, CVT mortality was higher in patients who were COVID positive compared to COVID negative patients (8/53 [15.0%] vs. 41/910 [4.5%], P=0.004). There was an increase in CVT mortality during the first 5 months of pandemic years 2020 and 2021 compared to the first 5 months of the pre-pandemic year 2019 (2019 vs. 2020: 2.26% vs. 4.74%, P=0.05; 2019 vs. 2021: 2.26% vs. 4.99%, P=0.03). In the first 5 months of 2021, there were 26 cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), resulting in six deaths. Conclusions During the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic, CVT hospitalization volume and CVT in-hospital mortality did not change compared to the prior year. COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with higher CVT in-hospital mortality. During the first 5 months of 2021, there was an increase in CVT hospitalization volume and increase in CVT-related mortality, partially attributable to VITT.