Academic Colleagues Research Articles

Emotional Turmoil or Peaceful Agreements? A Phenomenological Study on Coping with Reforms in Higher Education Institution

Promoting changes in an organisation is never an easy task. Coping with changes is an individual process and affects our individual physical and psychological well-being. This study attempted to analyse how university reforms were experienced by academic staff. It is framed by Self-Determination Theory, according to which there are three basic psychological needs that affect all people: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. I conducted Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA; Smith et al., 2009) to gain insight into participants’ experiences during the period of 4 years, 2014-2018. The participants came from two academic staff communities of the same institution. The data collection methods were observations, diary notes, and interviews. The data were analysed according IPA. The results reveal the important role of the sense of community and belongingness between academic peers and colleagues within broader academic staff communities. In fact, it may influence the individual’s experience of reforms in both directions—peaceful confidence or alarming apprehension. The findings suggest that lack of autonomy about one’s work life increases negative attitudes towards the reforms and alludes to emotion-focused coping strategies, whilst autonomy supportive and open working environment supports coping with reforms in an academic institution.

Resident Sensitive Quality Measures for General Pediatrics: Alignment With Existing Care Recommendations.

Resident sensitive quality measures (RSQMs) are a new patient-focused approach to performance assessment. Their alignment with existing performance constructs is underexplored. Develop and prioritize RSQMs for outpatient general pediatrics in the areas of well visits (0-2 months, 1, and 5 years) and compare to the existing framework of the Bright Futures recommendations. Categorical pediatric residents, general academic pediatric fellows, and general pediatric faculty participated in nominal group technique (NGT) and Delphi processes to generate and prioritize RSQMs for 3 different well-child visits of interest. The author team then compared the content of the final RSQMs to the American Academy of Pediatrics Bright Futures recommendations. From the list of 143 potential measures from the NGT groups, 15 RSQMs were prioritized for each well-child visit. RSQMs prioritized vaccine administration, documentation of screening, and medication management. Overall, RSQMs mapped well to Bright Futures recommendations. The alignment of the RSQMs with Bright Futures frameworks supports their contribution as process measures for informing resident performance. RSQMs created from this study should be used for future investigations into resident performance assessment and to drive personal improvement efforts.

Practicing co-produced research: tackling domestic abuse through innovative multi-agency partnership working

Increased momentum for co-production in policing research undoubtedly requires collaborative research efforts which include methodologies, philosophies, ethos and indeed partnerships of co-production. This paper explores collaborative research efforts to apply co-production in policing research. It does so through a focus on research and evaluation of the policing of domestic abuse and with emphasis on innovations through multi-agency partnerships. It discusses the challenges of practicing co-produced research in these contexts drawing on two research projects. One experience of research was a contracted evaluation of an innovative approach to tackling domestic abuse. This is used to reflect retrospectively through the prism of doing co-produced research. The second experience of research is used to reflect on having engaged in co-produced research from outset. The paper offers particular insight in to practicing co-produced research in the context of tackling domestic abuse through innovative multi-agency partnership working and more broadly for those engaged in academic–police collaborations in other areas of policing. Furthermore, the reflections may be useful in terms of academic colleagues framing their societal impact in line with the ethos, philosophy and praxis of co-produced research.

Efficacy of a fully remote primary lecture series at an academic hematology and oncology fellowship program.

11031 Background: 615 fellows began training in American combined hematology/oncology fellowship programs in July 2020. These new fellows face a steep learning curve. The coronavirus pandemic has significantly affected how we learn, with programs having to convert most collective learning to a completely virtual format. Research on the efficacy of introductory lecture series in academic hematology/oncology programs is limited especially regarding virtual formats. We introduced a virtual introductory lecture series with the goal of increasing the clinical confidence and knowledge base of first-year fellows. Methods: A once weekly remotely-delivered two-hour primer series was designed with lectures given by both third-year fellows and faculty from July-August 2020. Fellows were asked to complete pre & post-test evaluations of each lecture. Evaluations included a combination of knowledge-based questions & self-reported confidence assessment. Results: 14 fellows were assigned pre- and post-tests in the study. 1 fellow was excluded due to lack of participation. A total of 123 paired pre and post-tests were compared. Data analysis was performed with SPSS v 24.0 using the paired samples t-test. Pre and post-tests were graded on a scale of 0-100. The pre to post mean difference compares the mean test result of the post tests to that of the corresponding pretests. Questions were divided into 2 groups. The 1st group tested the fellow’s medical knowledge regarding the pathology while the 2nd group tested the comfort in the management, diagnosis and treatment. In the statistical analysis, these questions were defined as “Knowledge” and “Comfort” accordingly, the sum as “Complete”. A statistically significant improvement in post-test knowledge for fellows of all years was noted with a pre to post test mean difference of 12.52, P <.0001. The difference was more pronounced among 1st year fellows with a pre to post test mean difference of 16.84, P <.0001. A similar improvement was seen for the comfort in management questions. The post-test comfort pre to post test mean difference was 10.48, P <.0001 for fellows of all years and 6.70, P <.0001 for first year fellows. Conclusions: A remotely-delivered introductory lecture series for fellows in a hematology/oncology training program increases both clinical knowledge and clinical confidence in fellows of all years of training.[Table: see text]

P117 Exploring experiences of Fracture Liaison Services and perceptions of a new decision tool to support patient and clinician decisions: a focus group study

Abstract Background/Aims The iFraP study (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention Treatments) is developing a computerised decision-support tool to support clinician decision-making, risk communication and informed patient decision-making in Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultations. To inform iFraP intervention development, this study explored 1) patient and clinician experiences of FLSs and 2) perspectives towards the new iFraP tool. Methods Four focus groups and supplementary interviews included 9 FLS clinicians, 7 General Practitioners (GPs), and 8 patients who recently attended an FLS consultation. Theoretically-informed thematic analysis was conducted to facilitate understanding of current FLS practice, potential intervention acceptability and possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation. Results FLS clinicians and GPs suggested that FLSs worked well to identify patients at high risk of future fracture and to recommend medication. FLS clinicians were confident in their role and felt their consultations were person-centred and addressed information needs. However, some FLS clinicians described communicating risk as difficult and gave examples of when they are uncertain whether medication should be recommended (e.g. patient with osteopenic bone mineral density). FLS clinicians had varying perceptions of their roles in discussing medications, with some not viewing this as their responsibility; whereas GPs reported that medication discussions were an important aspect of the FLS clinician role. When medication recommendations (and discussion) were delivered, the setting varied across services including face-to-face in clinic or at the patient’s home, by letter, or by telephone. On the whole, patients reflected positively on their FLS appointment. However, some patients described unmet information needs, such as risk of future fractures, potential benefits and risks of medications, and information about follow-up.Many FLS clinicians and GPs reflected upon the potential value of the tool, including the inclusion of visual images to facilitate understanding of fracture risk, and to promote consistent messages across FLSs and between primary and secondary care. Barriers to intervention implementation were also identified. Clinicians expressed concern that evidence-based Cates plots to support explanations of medication effectiveness may make patients believe medications are not ‘worthwhile’. This suggests that clinicians prioritised promotion of medication adherence over informed decision-making, highlighting that the goal of FLS clinicians and iFraP may not align. Furthermore, concern was expressed that use of a computerised tool may detract from the clinician-patient relationship. Conclusion These novel findings illustrate the experience of FLS consultations from three perspectives. They highlight FLS clinicians’ clinical decision-support needs and patients’ unmet need for clear information that addresses their medication concerns. Overall, the iFraP intervention was viewed as acceptable, with the potential to support clinicians’ decision-making and to facilitate informed decision-making. Differences in FLS configuration and a move to more remote consulting may mean the intervention needs to be adaptable to different settings to address barriers to implementation. Disclosure L. Bullock: None. C. Jinks: Grants/research support; CJ is part funded by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. A. Hawarden: Grants/research support; AH is a NIHR funded Academic Clinical Fellow. F. Crawford-Manning: Grants/research support; FCM is part funded by the NIHR Clinical Research Network Scholar Programme. S. Leyland: None. J. Fleming: None. E.M. Clark: None. E. Cottrell: None. J. Edwards: Grants/research support; JE is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer in Primary Care (CL-2016-10-003). Z. Paskins: Grants/research support; ZP is funded by the NIHR, Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2018-18-ST2-010)/NIHR Academy.

When do I tell my supervisor?

There seemed to be no point in mentioning the possibility yet. I was a few years into my Ph.D., and I had just applied for a 3-month industry internship program. Starting even before I joined my supervisor's lab, I had been open with her about my interest in an industry career. She had always been supportive, including sharing her experience transitioning from biotech to academia. But I wasn't entirely sure she would be happy with the internship timing, which would mean taking a break from my Ph.D. during my final year. Anyway, I doubted that I would even get in. It didn't seem worth opening a potential can of worms for something that felt unlikely to happen. > “Choosing your own path takes determination and resilience, but you don't have to do it alone.” Then, in January 2020, I was shocked and thrilled when I received word that my application was successful! But soon, things took a turn. I could have used my supervisor's help. Yet I still hesitated, feeling I needed to present her with a clean, confident proposal of my plans rather than lean on her for support. The internship coordinators matched me to a company based on my experience and interests, and it seemed like a great fit at first. But after meeting with the CEO, I began to have second thoughts. The company wanted me to start in the spring. However, I was in the middle of critical experiments for two manuscripts and hoped to start a little later in the year to minimize the disruption to my Ph.D. Also, the company did not have a clear project for me, and I worried that I could end up doing busywork rather than getting an authentic industry research scientist experience. I spent the next few weeks mulling over my options. Should I accept the offer, knowing I might not find any job satisfaction and that my Ph.D. could be derailed? Or should I gamble on finding an opportunity that was a better fit? The funds had to be used within 2020, so I would be racing against time to find another host company and get everything set up. Moreover, most of the companies from the selection pool were outside Oslo, where I live with my husband, and we did not want to live apart, having already been through that once before. Ultimately, I rejected the original company's offer, cautiously optimistic that I would be able to find a new host in time that would be a better match. It was a big gamble, and it finally spurred me to face my fears and involve my supervisor. I worried that I would lose this opportunity, and my supervisor seemed to be the best person to help save it. Although I did not know how she would take the news, I mustered the courage to send her an email explaining my predicament. I was surprised and relieved when I received her positive response. She didn't even question me about the late disclosure. She was happy for me to take a 3-month break. We had honest conversations and decided on a reasonable timetable that would make the transition back into my Ph.D. project as smooth as possible and wouldn't significantly delay my degree. Through her contacts, she also found three companies in Oslo that matched my interests, and ultimately I found a suitable host. In hindsight, I wish I had talked with her sooner. In September 2020, I said goodbye for now to my academic colleagues and headed to industry. The internship gave me time away from the repetitive tasks of my Ph.D. and offered new challenges. It helped me appreciate that much about being a scientist is the same everywhere, and that the skills I had acquired during my Ph.D. were useful in industry. And I built valuable connections that could be helpful in the future. I'm now back in my Ph.D. lab, finishing up my thesis and scheduled to graduate just a few months later than if I had not done the internship. The experience taught me that you have to push for what you need. Choosing your own path takes determination and resilience, but you don't have to do it alone. Be open with your mentors, and reach out for help.

A Cross-Sectional Study of Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors for Dementia and Cognitive Function in India

Background: Dementia is rising globally, particularly in low-and-middle-income countries. India has almost four million people living with dementia, set to double by 2050. Targeting nine potentially modifiable risk factors (less education, hearing impairment, depression, physical inactivity, hypertension, obesity, smoking, diabetes, and social isolation) could possibly prevent or delay many dementias. We aimed for the first time to examine risk factors for dementia in India and their link with cognitive status and dementia, to inform prioritisation of public health interventions that could prevent or delay dementia. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using three studies: 10/66 Dementia Study (n= 2,004), Longitudinal Aging Study of India (n= 386), and Study of Global Ageing (n= 2,441). Our exposures were the nine risk factors above. We calculated a cognitive z-score within each study and used dementia diagnosis in 10/66. We adjusted for socioeconomic factors, age, and sex using multivariable linear for cognition and logistic regression for dementia. Findings: Less education, hearing impairment, depression, and physical inactivity were associated with lower z-scores and increased odds of dementia. Obesity was associated with higher z-score and lower odds of dementia. Social isolation was associated with lower z-scores and decreased odds of dementia. Results for smoking, diabetes, and hypertension were inconsistent. Interpretation: Our risk estimates were larger for less education, hearing impairment and physical inactivity compared to global estimates and should be intervention priorities. This study highlights the need for longitudinal studies to clarify the relationship between these potentially modifiable risk factors and dementia in India. Funding Information: CBR is supported by a National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Fellowship, NM by an Alzheimer’s Society Senior Fellowship, GL by North Thames NIHR ARC and an NIHR senior investigator award. GL and NM are supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Declaration of Interests: The authors have no interests to disclose. Ethics Approval Statement: This was a secondary analysis of existing data. Ethics committee approval was sought by each individual study. We received agreement to use this data on 3rd October 2019 and downloaded the data dictionary, questionnaires and assessment tools.

First person profile: Matthew L. Meyerson, MD, PhD: Pioneering scientist leads key discoveries in cancer genomics.

First person profile: Matthew L. Meyerson, MD, PhD: Pioneering scientist leads key discoveries in cancer genomics.

6 feet apart but working together.

Prior to COVID‐19, the field of genetic counseling was responding to a workforce shortage in patient‐facing roles through efforts to increase the training capacity within existing programs, as well as development of new programs. These efforts were hindered by the number and capacity of fieldwork training sites. COVID‐19 heightened this barrier with a sudden restriction on student training for an indefinite period of time. The onset of these restrictions highlighted the need to think creatively and, more importantly, collaboratively for ways to not only expand but also maintain fieldwork training capacity.Described here are two different collaborative efforts in response to pandemic‐related cancellations of important curriculum components: 1) the development of clinical simulation experiences and coursework shared between two ACGC accredited training programs; and 2) the creation of a virtual laboratory curriculum between an ACGC accredited training program and a non‐academic laboratory partner.This Professional Issues paper illustrates how collaboration with our academic and non‐academic colleagues benefits students, training programs and non‐academic partners beyond the needs of the initial crisis of a global pandemic.

Multidimensional meanings of studying abroad : international mobility experiences of Taiwanese joint dual doctoral program students in Belgium

Promoting dual doctoral degree programs is a critical strategy adopted to not only internationalize Taiwan's higher education system but also improve the low enrollment rates in doctoral programs in the country. However, limited research attention has been paid to the experiences of Taiwanese students enrolled in dual degree programs. Therefore, the present study adopted a qualitative approach to explore the experiences of Taiwanese students enrolled in a Taiwanese-Belgian joint dual doctoral program. A total of seven Taiwanese students and Belgian scholars participated in this study. The findings indicated that all student informants intended to study abroad before deciding to participate in the joint dual doctoral program; however, due to time and money restrictions, they participated in the joint dual doctoral programs established by their home universities in Taiwan. This study highlighted that students were motivated to participate in international, cooperative doctoral programs because obtaining dual learning experiences at both domestic and overseas universities differentiated them from purely domestic doctoral students. In this manner, the experience of studying abroad enhances their unique value in the academic market. While studying abroad, intercultural communication, in addition to differences in doctoral training schemes and supervision styles, were vital challenges that affected student informants' learning experiences and adaptation to life. During this process, the students constructed their adaptation and negotiation strategies to address those challenges. These strategies made them (re)define and (re)confirm their academic positions and identities. However, the limited period for studying abroad reduced students' motivation to participate and engage in local activities and establish social networks with local residents and friends in the host society. Moreover, the public and academic colleagues' limited understanding of the joint dual doctoral program may not only negatively affect students' academic mobility in terms of obtaining positions in the academic market but also influence prospective students' willingness to participate in such programs. Moreover, this study provides constructive suggestions for the development of joint dual doctoral programs on the basis of students' own practical experiences. Finally, the study's limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Conversations and Reflections on Authentic Assessment

In this paper, we describe how academic colleagues from different fields used a theoretical framework for authentic assessment as the starting point for meaningful conversations about our teaching practices. We re-envision Hutchings’ (2000) taxonomy of SoTL questions as a fluid conversational cycle rather than a system of classification. Using the eight elements of authentic assessment as outlined by Ashford-Rowe et al. (2014) as a theoretical framework, we engage with the research literature, reflect on what is and what works from our previous teaching and learning experiences, and propose ideas and questions for what is possible moving forward.

Navigating three faces of decentred leadership in the UK Parliament

PurposeThe Westminster Parliament is multifaceted, lacks cohesion and collective direction, appearing at times to challenge the very notion of a structured public institution itself. Within an environment with little collective identity, understanding who leads in the UK Parliament is challenging; there are multiple, contestable sites of leadership and governance. The purpose of this article is to explore the understudied concept of legislative leadership, to better understand what goes on inside the legislature. The author presents a decentred and nuanced disaggregation of “leadership as practice” in parliament, examining three faces of legislative leadership.Design/methodology/approachInterpretive approaches to studying legislatures have presented new impetus to research in this area and the author utilises such anti-foundationalism. The article draws on ethnographic research into “everyday practices”, conducted during an academic fellowship in the UK Parliament from 2016 to 2019, which involved privileged access to the parliamentary estate. The data used include observations, shadowing and elite interviews collected during the fellowship.FindingsBy looking at the legislature from the inside, the author can better understand elite behaviour. This helps to explain motives, daily pressures and performative skills deployed in displays of autonomous, decentred leadership. The legislative leadership the author observed was atomised and could be stretched to accommodate the incumbent office holder. There were multiple relationships both formally constituted and informally constructed, but little collaborative or consensus leadership.Originality/valueThis article fulfils an identified need to study leadership in legislatures – and in particular key elites – from the inside.

Assessing the Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1nCoV-19 COVID-19 Vaccination in Prevention of Hospitalisations in Elderly and Frail Adults: A Single Centre Test Negative Case-Control Study

Background: On 8th December 2020, deployment of the first vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 authorised for UK use, the mRNA-based vaccine BNT162b2, began, followed by the adenoviral vector vaccine ChAdOx1nCoV-19 on 4th January 2021. Initially care home-residents and staff, frontline healthcare workers and adults from age 80 were targeted. In phase 3 trials, BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1nCoV-19 demonstrated 95% and 70% efficacy, respectively, after two doses against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, few data exist regarding the effectiveness of these vaccines in elderly frail people. Evaluation following implementation to determine the effectiveness of one dose in reducing hospitalisations due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in elderly adults is urgent.Methods: A prospective single-centre test-negative design case-control study of adults aged ≥80 years hospitalised with COVID-19 disease or other acute respiratory disease. We conducted logistic regression controlling for time (week), gender, index of multiple deprivations (IMD), and care residency status (CRS), and sensitivity analyses matched for time and gender using a conditional logistic model adjusting for IMD and CRS.Findings: First dose vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 was 71.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.5-90.6). ChAdOx1nCoV-19 first dose vaccine effectiveness was 80.4% (95% CI 36.4-94.5). When effectiveness analysis for BNT162b2 was restricted to the period covered by ChAdOx1nCoV-19, the estimate was 79.3% (95% CI 47.0-92.5).Interpretation: A single dose of either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1nCoV-19 vaccine resulted in substantial reductions in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation in elderly, frail patients with extensive co-morbid disease.Funding: The AvonCAP study is an investigator-led project funded under a collaborative agreement by Pfizer.Conflict of Interest: CH is Principal Investigator of the Avon CAP study which is an investigator-led University of Bristol study funded by Pfizer and has previously received support from the NIHR in an Academic Clinical Fellowship. JO is a Co-Investigator on the Avon CAP Study. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) and chair of the World Health Organization European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (ETAGE) committee. In addition to receiving funding from Pfizer as Chief Investigator of this study, he leads another project investigating transmission of respiratory bacteria in families jointly funded by Pfizer and the Gates Foundation. The other authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.Ethical Approval: The study was approved by the Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (East of England, Essex), REC 20/EE/0157, including data collection under Section 251 of the 2006 NHS Act authorised by the Confidentiality Advisory Group.

Conversations and Reflections on Authentic Assessment

In this paper, we describe how academic colleagues from different fields used a theoretical framework for authentic assessment as the starting point for meaningful conversations about our teaching practices. We re-envision Hutchings’ (2000) taxonomy of SoTL questions as a fluid conversational cycle rather than a system of classification. Using the eight elements of authentic assessment as outlined by Ashford-Rowe et al. (2014) as a theoretical framework, we engage with the research literature, reflect on what is and what works from our previous teaching and learning experiences, and propose ideas and questions for what is possible moving forward.

Leadership corner: COVID courage awardees

Leadership corner: COVID courage awardees

Academic paediatric surgery in Australia and New Zealand: Its governance, drivers, successes and challenges

Traditionally, academic surgeons have been expected to excel in research, administration, teaching and clinical work. For many, to be strong in all of these areas is aspirational rather than a reality – and it may not always be a desirable expectation. It is more likely that future academic surgeons will have exceptional ability in several of these domains, but probably not all. Clinical expertise (even if it is within a narrow field) is critical to gaining credibility with non-academic surgical colleagues; and research leadership and substantial ongoing academic output is critical to maintaining credibility among academic surgical colleagues - and facilitates funding success. The Board of Paediatric Surgery is the specialty training board of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) that is responsible for the training program in paediatric surgery for both Australia and New Zealand. “Scholarship and teaching” is designated as being one of the nine competencies RACS expects of all surgeons. Expertise in the domain of scholarship (and research) occurs at two levels: (1) A working knowledge of scientific method, having a critical and curious mind matched with an ability to formulate a research question and contribute to research studies, and an ability to analyse research data and to use it to inform clinical practice. This is expected of all surgeons; and (2) A career academic surgeon with a formal commitment to research which becomes a major component of their work, with the requisite expertise in scientific method to be able to design, set up and complete research studies. The RACS provides support for academia in surgery to flourish in multiple ways and at various stages in the surgeons’ career, as described in this chapter. Increasingly, the academic surgeon has to forge links and to collaborate with other research groups. At least in Australia and New Zealand, departments should work to ensure that their academic surgeons are not excessively burdened with departmental leadership and governance roles that do not require specific academic expertise. Arguably, future academic paediatric surgeons will expect to have a better balance in their lives than some of their predecessors!

Sex-Based Language Differences in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Fellowship Recommendation Letters.

Letters of recommendation (LORs) are a significant component of residency and fellowship applications. Applicant sex may play a role in the language used in letters, which could hinder progress in academic fields, particularly for women. Although differences in language based on applicant sex have been identified in other fields, no prior studies have evaluated LORs for female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) fellowships. Letters of recommendations for applicants to an urban, tertiary care academic medical FPMRS fellowship from 2017 to 2019 were collected. Using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program, a licensed text analysis software for academic purposes, we analyzed LORs based on 16 categories. The Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher exact test, and a generalized linear mixed model were used for statistical analyses. A total of 97 fellowship applications were analyzed, yielding 354 LORs; 32 applicants were male, whereas 65 were female. Letters written for male applicants contained significantly more power words (P = 0.022) and significantly less affiliation words (P = 0.025) compared with female counterparts. Differences were maintained after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, step 1 to step 3 scores, Phi Beta Kappa status, Alpha Omega Alpha status, and writer's sex. Significant linguistic differences based on applicant sex exist in FPMRS fellowship LORs. Differences are consistent with previous analyses within science and medical fields. These findings did not show a significant association with an applicant's ability to match; however, we did not analyze whether the matched institution was the preferred choice for each applicant.

Developing the Inclusive Course Design Tool: a tool to support staff reflection on their inclusive practice

Inclusivity is fundamental to higher education, its course design, its assessment and its delivery. The principles of inclusivity offer all students the opportunities to achieve to the best of their ability. The purpose of this case-study is to outline the context, process, development and initial evaluation of a newly generated tool designed for academic colleagues. The Inclusive Course Design Tool (ICDT) offers a series of questions for reflection with supporting guidance rooted in theory and research on inclusion, pedagogy, multiculturalism, universal design for learning and implicit and unconscious bias. This first version of the tool encourages course teams to reflect on and interrogate the nature of inclusive academic practice in their courses, in their course curricula, their classrooms (virtual or physical) and their approaches to student learning and support. The contextualised rationale for the tool, its design, the consultation process, its early evaluation and future considerations as an institutional tool are explored. This paper specifically explores its use to try to reduce the black, asian and minority ethnic (BAME) student award gap and enhance success and graduate outcomes, as well as academic practice and staff reflection.

Novel Modifications for a Virtual Interview Visit to Simulate the Traditional, Live, Site Visit for GI Fellowship Applicants for an Academic GI Fellowship Program Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Novel Modifications for a Virtual Interview Visit to Simulate the Traditional, Live, Site Visit for GI Fellowship Applicants for an Academic GI Fellowship Program Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Cholinergic Capsules and Academic Admonitions.

Herein, I intend to capture highlights shared with my academic and research colleagues over the 60 years I devoted initially to my graduate and postdoctoral training and then to academic endeavors starting as an assistant professor in a new medical school at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). During this period, the Department of Pharmacology emerged from a division within the Department of Medicine to become the first basic science department, solely within the School of Medicine at UCSD in 1979. As part of the school's plans to reorganize and to retain me at UCSD, I was appointed as founding chair. Some years later in 2002, faculty, led largely within the Department of Pharmacology and by practicing pharmacists within UCSD Healthcare, started the independent Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences with a doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) program, where I served as the founding dean. My career pathway, from working at my family-owned pharmacy to chairing a department in a school of medicine and then becoming the dean of a school of pharmacy at a research-intensive, student-centered institution, involved some risky decisions. But the academic, curricular, and accreditation challenges posed were met by a cadre of creative faculty colleagues. I offer my experiences to individuals confronted with a multiplicity of real or imagined opportunities in academic health sciences, the related pharmaceutical industry, and government oversight agencies.