Sanborn, D. M.

Background. Invasive fungal infections are associated with high morbidity in solid organ transplant recipients. Risk factor modification may help with preventative efforts. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for the development of fungal infections within the first year following solid organ transplant. Methods. We searched for eligible articles through February 3, 2023. Studies published after January 1, 2001, that pertained to risk factors for development of invasive fungal infections in solid organ transplant were reviewed for inclusion. Of 3087 articles screened, 58 were included. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to evaluate individual risk factors for the primary outcome of any invasive fungal infections and invasive candidiasis or invasive aspergillosis (when possible) within 1 y posttransplant. Results. We found 3 variables with a high certainty of evidence and strong associations (relative effect estimate ≥ 2) to any early invasive fungal infections across all solid organ transplant groups: reoperation (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; confidence interval [CI], 1.79-4.75), posttransplant renal replacement therapy (OR, 2.91; CI, 1.87-4.51), and cytomegalovirus disease (OR, 2.97; CI, 1.78-4.94). Both posttransplant renal replacement therapy (OR, 3.36; CI, 1.78-6.34) and posttransplant cytomegalovirus disease (OR, 2.81; CI, 1.47-5.36) increased the odds of early posttransplant invasive aspergillosis. No individual variables could be pooled across groups for invasive candidiasis. Conclusions. Several common risk factors exist for the development of any invasive fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Additional risk factors for invasive candidiasis and aspergillosis may be unique to the pathogen, transplanted organ, or both.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third-most lethal cancer in the USA, and early detection through screening is crucial for improving outcomes. However, significant disparities in access and utilisation of CRC screening exist among patients with limited English proficiency. Our Quality Improvement (QI) team developed and implemented a video, featuring a Somali-speaking physician, created with input from internal medicine (IM) residents, patient education experts and community leaders to increase the rate of CRC screening uptake within a Somali-speaking population receiving primary care within an IM Residency Clinic. The baseline proportion of average-risk Somali-speaking patients who had successfully been screened for CRC was 46.3% (63/134). The proportion of patients agreeable to undergo CRC screening was assessed monthly from the beginning of video implementation (June 2022 to December 2022). We found that this intervention corresponded with a significant increase in willingness to undergo CRC screening from 36.4% to 100% during the early stages of intervention. At the end of our measurement timeframe, the proportion of the original population fully screened for CRC was 50.7% (68/134). Implementation of the video intervention was also assessed and determined to be minimally disruptive to the clinic flow.

Technology in navigating to peripheral pulmonary nodules has improved in recent years. The recent integration of a robotic platform using shape-sensing technology and mobile cone-beam computed tomography imaging technology has enhanced confidence in sampling lesions with intraprocedural imaging by complimenting the pre-planned navigation to peripheral pulmonary nodules. We present 2 cases using the software integration that improved the robotic catheter positioning to allow for diagnostic specimens to be obtained in the initial biopsies.

Abstract Background Procedural training is a required competency in internal medicine (IM) residency, yet limited data exist on residents’ experience of procedural training. Objectives We sought to understand how gender impacts access to procedural training among IM residents. Methods A mixed-methods, explanatory sequential study was performed. Procedure volume for IM residents between 2016 and 2020 was assessed at two large academic residencies (Program A and Program B: 399 residents and 4,020 procedures). Procedural rates and actual versus expected procedure volume by gender were compared, with separate analyses by clinical environment (intensive care unit [ICU] or structured procedural service). Semistructured gender-congruent focus groups were conducted. Topics included identity formation as a proceduralist and the resident procedural learning experience, including perceived gender bias in procedure allocation. Results Compared with men, women residents performed disproportionately fewer ICU procedures per month at Program A (1.4 vs. 2.7; P < 0.05) but not at Program B (0.36 vs. 0.54; P = 0.23). At Program A, women performed only 47% of ICU procedures, significantly fewer than the 54% they were expected to perform on the basis of their time on ICU rotations (P < 0.001). For equal gender distribution of procedural volume at Program A, 11% of the procedures performed by men would have needed to have been performed by women instead. Gender was not associated with differences in the Program A structured procedural service (53% observed vs. 52% expected; P = 0.935), Program B structured procedural service (40% observed vs. 43% expected; P = 0.174), or in Program B ICUs (33% observed vs. 34% expected; P = 0.656). Focus group analysis identified that women from both residencies perceived that assertiveness was required for procedural training in unstructured learning environments. Residents felt that gender influenced access to procedural opportunities, ability to self-advocate for procedural experience, identity formation as a proceduralist, and confidence in acquiring procedural skills. Conclusion Gender disparities in access to procedural training during ICU rotations were seen at one institution but not another. There were ubiquitous perceptions that assertiveness was important to access procedural opportunities. We hypothesize that structured allocation of procedures would mitigate disparities by allowing all residents to access procedural training regardless of self-advocacy. Residency programs should adopt structured procedural training programs to counteract inequities.