David L. Coleman

The Scholarship of Application.

The scholarship of application encompasses a broad range of different types of scholarship in the sciences and humanities that involves translation of new knowledge to practical applications to solve problems of individuals and of society. The authors discuss this form of scholarship broadly, but focus on how it applies to patient-oriented research and to service performed by physicians. They distinguish between a clinicians use of his or her expertise (not scholarship) and a clinicians activities such as systematically assessing the effectiveness of different techniques and communicating the findings in a way that allows others to benefit (scholarship). They (1) review the importance of scholarship of application (i.e., society depends on the application of new knowledge), with special attention to the benefits to academic institutions; (2) discuss incentives for such scholarship (e.g., readiness of funding for directly applicable research) and disincentives (e.g., shortcomings in methods; lower prestige); (3) explain how it should be evaluated (create a more expansive peer-review process); (4) explain how it should be rewarded (rewards should be similar to those given for other forms of scholarship); and (5) describe how it should be nurtured (rigorous training in methodology, protected time for research, tangible support). They conclude that the interdependence of academic institutions and of society requires that the scholarship of application be conducted with rigor and relevance, and that institutions must develop strategies to promote applied scholarship.

Association between serum inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations and therapeutic outcome in bacterial endocarditis

Several recent reviews on the therapy of bacterial endocarditis have recommended that a serum inhibitory and/or bactericidal concentration (SIC/SBC) of 1:8 or more be achieved to ensure successful therapeutic outcome. We conducted a methodologic and statistical analysis of the available literature on endocarditis to determine the association between SIC/SBC titers of 1:8 or more and therapeutic outcome. We reviewed 17 studies published between 1948 and 1980 in which both SIC/SBC and therapeutic outcome were available. Factors that affect outcome, such as age, duration of symptoms, organism, and valve status, varied widely among the 226 patients. The methods used to measure SIC/SBC differed with respect to the time of obtaining the blood specimen relative to the antibiotic dose, size of the bacterial inoculum, type of broth, and definition of the bactericidal end-point. None of the 17 studies showed a significant association between SIC/SBC titers of 1:8 or more and survival or bacteriologic cure. Fifteen of the 17 also failed to demonstrate a significant association between SIC/SBC titers of 1:8 or more and medical cure. However, each of the studies that failed to demonstrate an association between SIC/SBC titers of 1:8 or more and improved therapeutic outcome had an insufficient sample size to confidently exclude a false-negative result. Analysis of the published data reveals insufficient evidence to demonstrate that SIC and SBC titers are of prognostic value in the therapy of patients with bacterial endocarditis.

Guidelines for Interactions between Clinical Faculty and the Pharmaceutical Industry: One Medical School's Approach

A productive and ethical relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and physicians is critical to improving drug discovery and public health. In response to concerns about inappropriate financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and physicians, national organizations representing physicians or industry have made recommendations designed to reduce conflicts of interest, legal exposure, and dissemination of biased information. Despite these initiatives, the prescribing practices of physicians may be unduly influenced by the marketing efforts of industry and physicians may inadvertently distribute information that is biased in favor of a commercial entity. Moreover, physicians may be vulnerable to prosecution through federal anti-kickback and false claims statutes because of potentially inappropriate financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Since academic medical centers have a critical role in establishing professional standards, the faculty of Yale University School of Medicine developed guidelines for the relationships of faculty with the pharmaceutical industry, which were approved in May 2005. Input from clinical faculty and from representatives of the pharmaceutical industry was utilized in formulating the guidelines. In contrast to existing recommendations, the Yale guidelines, which are presented as an Appendix here, ban faculty from receiving any form of gift, meal, or free drug sample (for personal use) from industry, and set more stringent standards for the disclosure and resolution of financial conflict of interest in Yales educational programs. The growing opportunities for drug discovery, the need to use medications in a more evidence-based manner, and preservation of the public trust require the highest professional standards of rigor and integrity. These guidelines are offered as part of the strategy to meet this compelling challenge.

Viewpoint:: The Impact of the Lack of Health Insurance: How Should Academic Medical Centers and Medical Schools Respond?

The lack of health insurance has significant deleterious effects on the health of individual patients and creates substantial financial pressure on health care institutions. Despite the historical role of academic medical centers (AMCs) and medical schools in caring for the uninsured, financial shortfalls have increased pressure on these institutions to restrict care of this population. Limiting care of the uninsured, however, conflicts with the ethical foundations of academic medicine and risks further harm to the health of this population. Instead of restricting care, the effects of uninsurance should be mitigated through the joint efforts of medical schools and AMCs by measuring clinical work using work Relative Value Units rather than collections; recognizing faculty who provide care for the uninsured in the promotions process; adjusting billing rates for clinical services according to patients’ ability to pay; delivering one standard of care irrespective of insurance status; continuing to evaluate the impact of uninsurance and intervention strategies; providing leadership in measuring and improving the quality of care; ensuring that trainees and the public are familiar with the effects of a lack of health insurance; and assisting safety net providers by providing educational materials pertinent to their respective patient populations and more fully integrating these providers into the academic community. Although all physicians in the private and public sectors should share in the care of the uninsured, academic medicine must remain faithful to its historical role of providing care to the uninsured and should improve the health of the uninsured through a proactive strategy involving advocacy, clinical care, education, and research.

Establishing policies for the relationship between industry and clinicians: lessons learned from two academic health centers.

The relationship between faculty in academic health centers (AHCs) and commercial entities is critically important to improving the public health, yet it may be prone to conflicts of interest that adversely affect medical education, research, and clinical care. The Association of American Medical Colleges has recently recommended that medical schools and AHCs develop policies that better manage and occasionally prohibit interactions between academic medicine and industry. Because the development of more stringent policies is complex and potentially contentious, the author reports the lessons learned from developing new policies for the interactions between faculty and industry related to medical education and clinical care at Yale School of Medicine and Boston University School of Medicine/Boston Medical Center. The content of the policies was strongly influenced by the tenets of medical professionalism. Faculty support for new policies was strong, an iterative and inclusive process of formulation was critical, compromises in content were necessary, and the views of faculty concerning industry relationships were complex. After implementation of the new policies, the departmental food-related expenses increased, the loss of gifts was not appreciably missed, the faculty assumed more responsibility for educating trainees on the evaluation of new products, a central repository for receiving and evaluating grants from industry was useful, enforcement of the policies has been a lingering challenge, and the new policies generated positive publicity. Several recommendations are proposed. Creating these policies affirmed the importance of an inclusive process, open communication, support of institutional leadership, and focus on professional values.

Building interdisciplinary biomedical research using novel collaboratives.

Traditionally, biomedical research has been carried out mainly within departmental boundaries. However, successful biomedical research increasingly relies on development of methods and concepts crossing these boundaries, requiring expertise in different disciplines. Recently, major research institutes have begun experimenting with ways to foster an interdisciplinary ethos. The Evans Center for Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research (“the Evans Center”) at Boston University is a new organizational paradigm to address this challenge. The Evans Center is built around interdisciplinary research groups termed affinity research collaboratives (ARCs). Each ARC consists of investigators from several academic departments and at least two research disciplines, bound by a common goal to investigate biomedical problems concerning human disease. Novel aspects of the Evans Center include a “bottom-up” approach to identifying areas of ARC research (research vision and strategy are typically initiated by a core group of faculty with input from the center director); a pre-ARC period of faculty affiliation/project(s)’ self-selection prior to formation of a peer-reviewed ARC; and Evans Center support for innovative ARCs for up to three years pending yearly metric evaluation, followed by continued administrative support as a group matures into an ARC program. Since its inception in early 2009, the Evans Center has documented achievements at discovery/publication, grant award, and educational levels. Enhanced interactions between members of individual ARCs, as assessed by quantitative networking analysis, are discussed in the context of high productivity. As universities seek new approaches to stimulate interdisciplinary research, the Evans Center and its ARCs are offered as a productive model for leveraging discovery.

Thrombotic Microangiopathy: A Multidisciplinary Team Approach

Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is characterized by the presence of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia and thrombocytopenia along with organ dysfunction, and pathologically, by the presence of microthrombi in multiple microvascular beds. Delays in diagnosis and initiation of therapy are common due to the low incidence, variable presentation, and poor awareness of these diseases, underscoring the need for interdisciplinary approaches to clinical care for TMA. We describe a new approach to improve clinical management via a TMA team that originally stemmed from an Affinity Research Collaborative team focused on thrombosis and hemostasis. The TMA team consists of clinical faculty from different disciplines who together are charged with the responsibility to quickly analyze clinical presentations, guide laboratory testing, and streamline prompt institution of treatment. The TMA team also includes faculty members from a broad range of disciplines collaborating to elucidate the pathogenesis of TMA. To this end, a clinical database and biorepository have been constructed. TMA leaders educate front-line providers from other departments through presentations in various forums across multiple specialties. Facilitated by an Affinity Research Collaborative mechanism, we describe an interdisciplinary team dedicated to improving both clinical care and translational research in TMA.

Strategies for Developing and Recognizing Faculty Working in Quality Improvement and Patient Safety.

Academic clinical departments have the opportunity and responsibility to improve the quality and value of care and patient safety by supporting effective quality improvement activities. The pressure to provide high-value care while further developing academic programs has increased the complexity of decision making and change management in academic health systems. Overcoming these challenges will require faculty engagement and leadership; however, most academic departments do not have a sufficient number of individuals with expertise and experience in quality improvement and patient safety (QI/PS). Accordingly, the authors of this article advocate for a targeted and proactive approach to developing faculty working in QI/PS. They propose a strategy predicated on the identification of QI/PS as a strategic priority for academic departments, the creation of enabling resources in QI/PS, and the expansion of rigorous training programs in change management and in improvement and implementation sciences. Professional organizations, health systems, medical schools, and academic departments should recognize successful QI/PS work with awards and promotions. Individual faculty members should expand their collaborative networks, consider the generalizability and scholarly impact of their efforts when designing QI/PS initiatives, and benchmark the outcomes of their performance. Appointments and promotions committees should work proactively with department and QI/PS leaders to ensure that outstanding achievement in QI/PS is defined and recognized. As with the development of physician–investigators and clinician–educators, departments and health systems need a comprehensive approach to support and recognize the contributions of faculty working in QI/PS to meet the considerable needs and opportunities in health care.

Perspective: key indicators in academic medicine: a suggested framework for analysis.

Key Indicators in Academic Medicine (KIAMs), a new feature in Academic Medicine, are intended to substantially inform teaching hospitals and medical schools on those metrics that may best gauge their health, including the performance of units and programs within these organizations. Ultimately, KIAMs may promote effective growth and development in a dynamic clinical, training, and research environment. At the outset of this laudable feature, the authors of this perspective offer a suggested framework for analyzing key indicators with the goal of enhancing the usefulness of the published KIAMs. They outline their view of pitfalls and opportunities in the development of key indicators and suggest strategies. The authors close by suggesting how this feature could form the framework for a comprehensive national project.

Catalyzing Interdisciplinary Research and Training: Initial Outcomes and Evolution of the Affinity Research Collaboratives Model

Team science has been recognized as critical to solving increasingly complex biomedical problems and advancing discoveries in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human disease. In 2009, the Evans Center for Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research (ECIBR) was established in the Department of Medicine at Boston University School of Medicine as a new organizational paradigm to promote interdisciplinary team science. The ECIBR is made up of affinity research collaboratives (ARCs), consisting of investigators from different departments and disciplines who come together to study biomedical problems that are relevant to human disease and not under interdisciplinary investigation at the university. Importantly, research areas are identified by investigators according to their shared interests. ARC proposals are evaluated by a peer review process, and collaboratives are funded annually for up to three years. Initial outcomes of the first 12 ARCs show the value of this model in fostering successful biomedical collaborations that lead to publications, extramural grants, research networking, and training. The most successful ARCs have been developed into more sustainable organizational entities, including centers, research cores, translational research projects, and training programs. To further expand team science at Boston University, the Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research Office was established in 2015 to more fully engage the entire university, not just the medical campus, in interdisciplinary research using the ARC mechanism. This approach to promoting team science may be useful to other academic organizations seeking to expand interdisciplinary research at their institutions.