University Health Sciences Center School Research Articles

A retrospective look at replacing face‐to‐face embryology instruction with online lectures in a human anatomy course

Embryology is integrated into the Clinically Oriented Anatomy course at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine. Before 2008, the same instructor presented embryology in 13 face-to-face lectures distributed by organ systems throughout the course. For the 2008 and 2009 offerings of the course, a hybrid embryology instruction model with four face-to-face classes that supplemented online recorded lectures was used. One instructor delivered the lectures face-to-face in 2007 and by online videos in 2008-2009, while a second instructor provided the supplemental face-to-face classes in 2008-2009. The same embryology learning objectives and selected examination questions were used for each of the three years. This allowed direct comparison of learning outcomes, as measured by examination performance, for students receiving only face-to-face embryology instruction versus the hybrid approach. Comparison of the face-to-face lectures to the hybrid approach showed no difference in overall class performance on embryology questions that were used all three years. Moreover, there was no differential effect of the delivery method on the examination scores for bottom quartile students. Students completed an end-of-course survey to assess their opinions. They rated the two forms of delivery similarly on a six-point Likert scale and reported that face-to-face lectures have the advantage of allowing them to interact with the instructor, whereas online lectures could be paused, replayed, and viewed at any time. These experiences suggest the need for well-designed prospective studies to determine whether online lectures can be used to enhance the efficacy of embryology instruction.

Pilot of peer assessment within experiential teaching and learning

ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to pilot test an instrument for peer assessment of experiential teaching, (2) to compare peer evaluations from faculty with student evaluations of their preceptor (faculty), and (3) to determine the impact of qualitative, formative peer assessment on faculty’s experiential teaching. MethodsFaculty at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Pharmacy implemented a new peer assessment instrument focused on assessing experiential teaching. For eleven quantitative evaluation questions, inter-rater reliability was compared between faculty and student assessments. Student evaluations from 2003–2004 and 2010–2011 were compared to determine if preceptor performance improved. ResultsEight faculty members participated in this pilot. Comparing peer evaluations and student evaluations of faculty, a median intraclass correlation of 0.85 suggested redundancy. Five of eight faculty members remained seven years later, and three of five reported this assessment helpful and reported making changes to their teaching. Among these faculty members, preceptor performance improvements appeared strongest. ConclusionA peer assessment of experiential teaching was developed and implemented. Aside from evaluation, formative peer assessment seemed important in fostering feedback for faculty in their development.

Pediatric News

Pediatric News

The Family Medicine Accelerated Track Model: Producing More Family Doctors Faster

The Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine Family Medicine Accelerated Track reduces costs while encouraging medical students to pursue family medicine.

PPAG 2012 Board Election Results

PPAG 2012 Board Election Results

Responding to Feedback: Making Clear the Changes Made

Responding to Feedback: Making Clear the Changes Made

Handbook of Neurosurgery

Department of Neurosurgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A

Incoming Dental Students’ Expectations and Acceptance of an Electronic Textbook Program

Since 2005, the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry has required the VitalSource Technologies, Inc. Bookshelf as the textbook program for all dental students. In a 2008 survey, four classes of dental students expressed dissatisfaction with most features of the bookshelf. With the expectation that incoming students would be more accustomed and amenable to digital textbooks and to further determine student attitudes toward electronic textbooks, we developed two surveys for first-year dental students in the class of 2013. The sixty-five first-year students received a survey (S1) one week before they were introduced to the e-textbook program. Questions centered on their undergraduate experience with e-books and their expectations of studying with an electronic textbook collection. In the second survey (S2), sent nine months later, the questions focused on students' opinion of the VitalSource Bookshelf. Forty-five students (69.2 percent) completed the S1 survey. Of those, thirty-six (80 percent) responded that they never used e-textbooks in college. Of the nine students who responded that they used e-books, only two liked them without reservations. The response rate to S2 increased to fifty students (77 percent). After using VitalSource for nine months, thirty-three students (66 percent) indicated a preference for reading print textbooks, compared to forty-seven students (57.3 percent) of the four classes surveyed in 2008. Although we expected incoming dental students to have had previous experience with e-textbooks, only nine students had used e-books in college courses. Few students indicated preference for e-textbooks, and over half of the group was undecided. After experience with VitalSource for first-year courses, students indicated that they like VitalSource for the ability to search for specific topics across the entire collection of dental books, but not for reading large amounts of text.

Nurses' experiences of responding to a health care disaster or adventitious crisis: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.

Review Question/Objectives The purpose of this systematic review is to systematically review and synthesise research literature reporting nurses’ experiences of responding to a health care disaster or adventitious crisis. This review aims to answer the following specific question: What are nurses’ experiences of responding to a health care disaster or adventitious crisis? Inclusion criteria Types of participants The review will consider publications that include registered nurses who have worked in a disaster, healthcare disaster, or adventitious crisis (e.g. flood, hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, terrorist attack) in the years 1945 through 2011. 5 Nurses that will be included in this study are licensed practical nurses, professional registered nurses, and advanced practice registered nurses. Phenomena of interest This review will examine the experiences of nurses in responding to a disaster, health care disaster, or adventitious crisis. Consideration will be given to, but not be limited to, the following challenges: • reporting to work • personal and family safety • dwelling in uncertainty • providing front line clinical care • changing standards of care in health care disasters or adventitious crisis • functioning with severely limited resources, communication • triaging and providing care in a range of settings • maintaining infection control • crisis debriefing • mental health sequelae Context Context will include a consideration of the cultural factors, including, but not limited to, geographic location, specific racial or ethnic considerations, gender based interests, detail about the setting (for example, acute care, primary health care, or the community) as they relate to the experiences reported in the studies.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine at New Orleans

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine at New Orleans

Nursing Preceptor Workshops: Partnership and Collaboration Between Academia and Practice

Educating hospital nurses about the clinical nursing preceptor role is necessary to attract expert nurses to become preceptors for undergraduate nursing students. To accomplish the goal of teaching and recruiting nurse preceptors, partnerships were developed to provide preceptor workshops in the New Orleans, Louisiana, area. Collaboration between hospital nurse educators and the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Nursing faculty resulted in several workshop offerings. Workshop content included clinical teaching strategies, adult learning theories, and strategies for evaluating students in the clinical setting. These workshops benefited the nursing community, improved collaboration between hospital nurse educators and the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Nursing faculty, and increased the number of clinical preceptors. This article highlights the program description, the results of program evaluation, and the participants' demographic features.

Seeking Common Ground Between Medical Humanities and Basic Sciences

In Reply: Dr. Koepke makes valuable points: that basic science faculty’s often uninterested and even unsympathetic attitudes toward the medical humanities further complicate the already challenging task of establishing “common ground” between clinicians and humanities scholars, and that, during the initial two years of medical school, basic scientists serve as students’ primary role models. In our experience, although medical students (rightfully) respect achievement in biological science and, in this sense, “look up to” basic science faculty, most first- and second-year students see the clinical faculty whom they encounter—more now, fortunately, than in the past—as their more substantial role models. That having been said, basic science lecturers do exert substantial influence on students in terms of the attitudes and behaviors demonstrated in the classroom. This influence is compounded at schools where the basic science faculty exercise virtual control over the first two years of the curriculum, creating the perception of prestigious “insider” status. Even in so-called integrated curricula, humanities scholars do not begin to approximate this level of legitimacy. Regarding the certitude with which many of our basic science colleagues rely on the logico-scientific perspective (what they might term Truth), we agree that this stance makes meaningful intellectual exchange difficult at times. Here, the fable of the blind men feeling the elephant comes to mind. The point of that classic tale is that the sum is necessarily greater than its parts. This would seem to be especially true about the complex art and science of doctoring. No one, not scientist, not humanist, not even clinician, possesses enough “truth” to fully encompass the intricacies involved when one person tries to heal another. As Koepke astutely notes, the most pressing concern is that, in the medical education hierarchy, certain voices are prioritized over others. In the first two years of medical education, these dominant voices often belong to basic scientists. In the last two years, the clinicians hold sway, especially those from high-status specialties. The humanists, alas, remain mostly on the sidelines. When ideas, perspectives, and values can fairly compete in the intellectual and affective marketplace, we have confidence that challenges from basic science colleagues can only enrich the dialogue about how to better teach future physicians. But when humanities scholars must engage in such conversations not only within the context of a shared blindness but with a piece of tape over their mouths, then the disadvantages confronting the humanities will never be overcome. Johanna Shapiro, PhD Professor, Department of Family Medicine, and director, Program in Medical Humanities, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California; ([email protected]). Jack Coulehan, MD, MPH Senior fellow, Center for Medical Humanities, Compassionate Care, and Bioethics, Stony Brook University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York. Delese Wear, PhD Professor of behavioral sciences, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio. Martha Montello, PhD Associate professor, History and Philosophy of Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.

A Formalized Teaching, Practice, and Research Partnership with the Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System: A Model for Advancing Academic Partnerships

In 1999, the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Pharmacy expanded its Dallas/Fort Worth presence by creating a regional campus for pharmacy students in their third and fourth years (P3 and P4 years) of the program. This expansion was driven by the need for additional practice sites. The VANTHCS was an obvious choice for the school due to the similarity of missions for clinical practice, education, and research. The VANTHCS and pharmacy school renovated a 4,000 square foot building, which includes classrooms, conference rooms, a student lounge, and faculty offices (expanded to 8,000 square feet in 2003). To date, the school has invested $1 million in the building. From a practice perspective, VANTHCS purchases faculty professional services from the school to augment its clinical specialist staff. These professional practice contracts provide VANTHCS with 12 additional clinical pharmacy specialists serving 50% of their time in multiple specialty areas. The collaboration has also allowed for expansion of clinical teaching, benefitting both institutions. In addition to the pharmacy student interns on P3 and P4 practice experiences, the collaboration allows for 8 to 10 postgraduate pharmacy residents to train with VANTHCS clinical specialists and school faculty members each year. The VANTHCS/pharmacy school collaboration has clearly enhanced the ability of both institutions to exceed their teaching, research, and practice goals in a cost-effective manner.

Legal Barriers, Bias Complicate Aging for Gays, Lesbians

Legal Barriers, Bias Complicate Aging for Gays, Lesbians

Why We Do What We Do

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral NutritionVolume 32, Issue 5 p. 586-587 Editorial Why We Do What We Do Peggi Guenter PhD, RN, CNSN, Corresponding Author Peggi Guenter PhD, RN, CNSN [email protected] Director of Clinical Practice, Advocacy, and Research, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Silver Spring, MDAddress correspondence to: Peggi Guenter, PhD, RN, CNSN, 8630 Fenton St, Suite 412, Silver Spring, MD 20910; e-mail: [email protected].Search for more papers by this authorDebora Simmons MSN, RN, CCRN, CCNS, Debora Simmons MSN, RN, CCRN, CCNS Institute for Healthcare Excellence, University of Texas, and MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TXSearch for more papers by this authorRodney W. Hicks PhD, MSN, MPA, ARNP–FAANP, Rodney W. Hicks PhD, MSN, MPA, ARNP–FAANP The UMC Health Endowed Chair for Patient Safety at Texas Tech, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Nursing, Lubbock.Search for more papers by this author Peggi Guenter PhD, RN, CNSN, Corresponding Author Peggi Guenter PhD, RN, CNSN [email protected] Director of Clinical Practice, Advocacy, and Research, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Silver Spring, MDAddress correspondence to: Peggi Guenter, PhD, RN, CNSN, 8630 Fenton St, Suite 412, Silver Spring, MD 20910; e-mail: [email protected].Search for more papers by this authorDebora Simmons MSN, RN, CCRN, CCNS, Debora Simmons MSN, RN, CCRN, CCNS Institute for Healthcare Excellence, University of Texas, and MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TXSearch for more papers by this authorRodney W. Hicks PhD, MSN, MPA, ARNP–FAANP, Rodney W. Hicks PhD, MSN, MPA, ARNP–FAANP The UMC Health Endowed Chair for Patient Safety at Texas Tech, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Nursing, Lubbock.Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 September 2008 https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607108323435Citations: 1 Financial disclosure: none declared. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume32, Issue5September-October 2008Pages 586-587 RelatedInformation

Changes in Undergraduate Medical Education, Admissions, and Student Outcomes at LSU School of Medicine: Three Years After Katrina

Much has been written about the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (LSUHSC) School of Medicine in New Orleans1–4 and the importance of disaster planning for all medical schools. As we approach Katrina’s third anniversary, it is useful to reflect on the storm’s longer term effects on the school. This brief report summarizes the current status of our admissions process and undergraduate medical education curriculum. Pre-Katrina (July 2005) and immediate post-Katrina (July 2006) measures are used as benchmarks for comparison.

Acute elevation of triglycerides after initiation of fosamprinavir/ritonavir in an HIV-negative patient with baseline hypertriglyceridemia

hildren’s Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA (Dr. Nguyen); Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of harmacy—Dallas/Ft. Worth Regional Campus (Drs. Bain, Hall, and Busti); School of Pharmacy at the Dallas VA edical Center, 4500 S. Lancaster Rd., Dallas, TX 75216, USA (Drs. Bain, Bedimo, Hall, and Busti); and University of exas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA (Drs. Bain, Bedimo, and Hall)

Little Rebuilding Evident in New Orleans MH System

Little Rebuilding Evident in New Orleans MH System

Post Katrina: the story of the LSUHSC School of Nursing.

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER (LSUHSC) SCHOOL OF NURSING HAS A REMARKABLE STORY TO TELL. Hurricane Katrina blew through New Orleans in August zoo j, followed by a breach in the levees that effectively destroyed 80 percent of our beloved, cany city. As the world watched in horror, people abandoned their homes, their work, and all that constituted normal life. * Post Katrina, it has taken extraordinary effort by many people to regain some elements of normalcy for a city that is by no means repaired and restored. This article tells how, in those early days after the hurricane, nursing education kept on course within the LSUHSC system and how, surprisingly, the catastrophe provided a unique opportunity to plan a refashioned school of nursing. Making Do in Baton Rouge Although all LSUHSC buildings in New Orleans were forced to close for repairs, the six schools of the health sciences centers reopened on September 26, 2005, at our Baton Rouge flagship campus. Ninety-six percent of our students showed up. In efforts to educate our students in Baton Rouge and on other campuses across the state, logistics were daunting. LSU set up a telephone call-in service and established a website that had 2.5 millions hits within days. The Pete Maravich basketball stadium on the Baton Rouge campus was converted into a MASH unit. Staffed almost entirely by volunteers, it briefly became the largest acute care hospital in the country, processing 6,000 patients and triaging 15,000 others with special needs. Faculty slowly trickled into Baton Rouge, and it became possible to begin the process of organizing temporary structures for classrooms and housing. Housing was the most critical issue. Funds from FEMA allowed LSUHSC to hire a recently refurbished Finnish ferry, that normally crossed the Baltic Sea, as home for faculty, staff, and students. Buses were arranged to take students to class, and two meals each day, dinner and breakfast, were provided from the moored, stationary ship, where one could watch the Mississippi River roll inexorably downstream. Finding classroom space and clinical sites presented a major challenge. For an entire academic year, undergraduates had all their lectures before 11 am in a movie theatre where the aroma of popcorn was pervasive, the air was stuffy and stale, and the LCD player perched precariously on a seat in the back row. It was an odd experience to teach in a movie theater. We felt dwarfed by our PowerPoints, which loomed overhead on a huge screen, while with no place to put material we did an odd sort of juggling dance to follow our own notes, manage the PowerPoint, and ensure that our students remained engaged. Fortunately, Southeastern Louisiana University (SLU) lent us space for monthly Friday evening and Saturday classes for our graduate students. SLU also provided lab space, allowed us to place a librarian in their library, and made space available for a few faculty meetings. We were made to feel welcome, but it wasn't our home. Clinical sites were a different story. With scrambling, and the willingness to drive considerable distances and use both evening and night shifts, we were able to patch together sufficient sites. Nurse practitioners in various agencies helped us out, offering to become temporary part-time faculty for clinical supervision. The senior administration determined that all our health disciplines would continue to provide education to our student body. We had been undergoing undergraduate curriculum revision for some time and had just initiated a second-degree, accelerated baccalaureate program. Plus, we had begun development of a doctor of nursing practice program. The disruption provided the impetus to look at things in new ways. We had to be creative and willing to do things differently. We brought all changes to the Louisiana State Board of Nursing. The board, which also had to relocate to Baton Rouge and understood our difficulties and our needs, was willing to work with us, provided we kept them informed. …