Publications
Department of Medicine faculty members published more than 3,600 peer-reviewed articles in 2024.
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
PURPOSE
To characterize residents' practices around hospital discharge communication and their exposure to transitions-of-care instruction in graduate medical education (GME).
METHOD
In 2019, internal medicine residents at 7 academic medical centers completed a cross-sectional survey reporting the types of transitions-of-care instruction they experienced during GME training and the frequency with which they performed 6 key discharge communication practices. The authors calculated a mean discharge communication score for each resident, and, using multiple logistic regression, they analyzed the relationship between exposure to types of educational experiences and discharge communication practices residents reported they performed frequently (> 60% of time). The authors used content analysis to explore factors that motivated residents to change their discharge practices.
RESULTS
The response rate was 63.5% (613/966). Resident discharge communication practices varied. Notably, only 17.0% (n = 104) reported routinely asking patients to "teach-back" or explain their understanding of the discharge plans. The odds of frequently performing key discharge communication practices were greater if residents received instruction based on observation of and feedback regarding their communication (adjusted odds ratio 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.81) or if they received explicit on-rounds teaching (adjusted OR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.04-2.23). In open-ended comments, residents reported that experiencing adverse patient events at some point in the postdischarge continuum was a major impetus for practice change.
CONCLUSIONS
This study exposes gaps in hospital discharge communication with patients, highlights the benefits of workplace-based instruction on discharge communication skills, and reveals the influence of adverse events as a source of hidden curricula. The results suggest that developing faculty to incorporate transitions-of-care instruction in their rounds teaching and integrating experiences across the postdischarge continuum into residents' education may foster physicians-in-training who are champions of effective transitions of care within the fragmented health care system.
View on PubMed2021
INTRODUCTION
The SWItch/Sucrose Nonfermentable (SWI/SNF) chromatin remodeling complex acts as a regulatory component of transcription, and inactivating mutations (muts) within the complex are implicated in genomic instability, higher tumor mutational burden, and an aggressive cancer phenotype. Whether SMARCA4 and other SWI/SNF alterations are independent prognostic factors or associated with clinical outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in NSCLC remains unclear.
METHODS
We collected clinicopathologic and genomic data from patients with NSCLC who underwent targeted next-generation sequencing at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Tumors were characterized on the basis of the presence or absence of muts across a set of six SWI/SNF genes (ARID1A, ARID1B, ARID2, PBRM1, SMARCA4, and SMARCB1).
RESULTS
Of 2689 patients with NSCLC, 20.6% (N = 555) had SWI/SNF genomic alterations. Compared with SWI/SNF wild-type (wt) NSCLC, patients with SWI/SNF-mutant NSCLCs had a lower prevalence of concurrent targetable driver muts (33.2% versus 22.2%; p < 0.001), a higher tumor mutational burden (median 8.5 versus 12.2 muts/megabase; p < 0.001), and a shorter median overall survival (mOS) from the time of advanced disease diagnosis (25.0 versus 19.3 mo, p = 0.01); the detrimental effect in OS seemed to be largely driven by SMARCA4 muts (mOS: 25.0 for SMARCA4 wt versus 15.6 mo for SMARCA4 mutant; p < 0.001). Among 532 patients who received ICIs, 25.5% (N = 136) harbored SWI/SNF muts. From the start of immunotherapy, there was no difference in objective response rate (ORR = 19.9% versus 25.0%, p = 0.2), median progression-free survival (mPFS = 3.0 versus 3.0 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96 [95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77-1.18], p = 0.7), or mOS (13.1 versus 9.5 mo, HR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.64-1.02], p = 0.07) in SWI/SNF-wt versus SWI/SNF-mutant NSCLC, respectively. Nevertheless, among KRAS-mutant NSCLCs treated with ICIs (N = 176), a concurrent SWI/SNF mut (N = 39) conferred a numerically lower ORR (21.9% versus 12.8%, p = 0.2), a significantly shorter mPFS (4.1 versus 1.8 mo, HR = 0.57 [95% CI: 0.38-0.84], p = 0.005), and a significantly shorter mOS (15.5 versus 8.2 mo, HR = 0.56 [95% CI: 0.36-0.86], p = 0.008). The deleterious effect on immunotherapy outcomes in KRAS-mutant NSCLC was most pronounced in the SMARCA4-mutant subset (N = 17), with a lower ORR (22% versus 0%, p = 0.03), a significantly shorter mPFS (4.1 versus 1.4 mo, HR = 0.25 [95% CI: 0.14-0.42], p < 0.001), and a significantly shorter mOS (15.1 versus 3.0 mo, HR = 0.29 [95% CI: 0.17-0.50], p < 0.001) compared with SMARCA4-wt KRAS-mutant NSCLCs.
CONCLUSIONS
Although there were no associations between SWI/SNF mut status and immunotherapy efficacy in the overall NSCLC cohort, the presence of a SMARCA4 alteration may confer a worse outcome to immunotherapy among KRAS-mutant NSCLCs.
View on PubMed