Patel, Axi

ObjectiveDesign thinking is a creative problem‐solving process used to better understand users’ needs and experiences so that a product or service can be improved. Its emphasis on empathy, iterative prototyping, and participatory collaboration make it an ideal methodology for innovation in medical education. We apply this framework to the virtual rheumatology fellowship interview process so that interviews can become more applicant centered.MethodsThis educational quality improvement project uses a design‐thinking framework to identify opportunities and challenges for rheumatology fellowship applicants. The investigators use the 5‐step process (Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test) and incorporate rapid qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews to innovate the interview experience. The iterative and collaborative nature of this process has empowered participants to codesign an applicant‐centered interview experience.ResultsInterviews with fellowship applicants (n = 9), fellow physicians (n = 4), and faculty members (n = 3) identified three major dynamics of the interview process: (1) Is it a safe environment to ask questions? (2) How do I exchange information effectively? and (3) How do I fit all these data into the bigger picture? Creative brainstorming techniques at a series of three workshops yielded four prototypes emphasizing customization, hybridization, facilitation, and preparation. A finalized applicant‐centered interview template was devised in preparation for the 2023‐2024 application season.ConclusionDesign thinking has yielded insights into three important dynamics that drive applicant experiences. These insights allow for a redesign of processes so that virtual interviews can be more applicant centered. This framework allows for further iterations and modifications as the needs of applicants and programs evolve over time.

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) adversely affect the outcomes in the patients of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, however there are limited data exploring such an association in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Hypothesis: AF is associated with worse outcomes in HFpEF. Methods: We included all the patients with the primary diagnosis of HFpEF from the national inpatient sample (NIS) database (2012-2014) using ICD-9 codes. Exposure of interest was AF. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were rates of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), syncope, cardiogenic shock, embolic stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), acute kidney injury (AKI), passive hepatic congestion, ventricular fibrillation (V fib) and flutter, ventricular assist device (VAD), AICD, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), intra-aortic balloon placement (IABP) placement and heart transplantation. Hospitalization cost was also studied. Results: Our study cohorts included 26,51,970 patients of HFpEF with AF and 37,44,101 patients of HFpEF without AF. AF cohort had more numbers of older patients and less female representation. In-hospital mortality was more in AF cohort. Similarly, the odds of SCA, cardiogenic shock, embolic stroke, passive hepatic congestion, Vfib and flutter, AICD and CRT placement were higher in AF cohort. The odds of syncope, AMI and AKI were lower in AF cohort as compared to non-AF cohort. While the odds of heart transplantation and VAD and IABP use remained comparable between the study cohorts, AF cohort incurred greater of cost of hospitalization. Conclusion: AF in HFpEF patients is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and cardiogenic shock and should be aggressively treated for improved outcomes.