Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Mar 26, 2010
Present: Matt Bovee, Connie van Eeghen
1. Start up: Book club – “The Checklist Manifesto”: based on lack of attendance, we decided to post-pone a “close out” conversation on our book, thinking that it would be more productive with more people. Key questions to lead us down the “so what” and “where do we go from here” path:
a. What is the book’s value/take-away according to CROW and individual members
b. What can or should be done based on the book’s message(s)? How? By whom? For what purpose?
2. Meeting Schedule: Connie to confirm with faculty whether meeting time (Fridays at 9:30) is a constraint on attendance. To be reviewed next meeting.
3. Roundtable, with update, short term goals, long term goals
a. Connie: Data advice on her small sample, pre-project survey data results for Case 1:
i. Data hygiene: critiquing her Excel spreadsheet data collection tool
1. Make the actual questions (verbatim) accessible for data interpretation
2. Note that data validation should check not only for alpha-numeric accuracy, but also for differences that Excel is blind to, e.g. Excel does not distinguish between the entry “0” and a blank (unfilled) cell. Since 0 is a legitimate value, and a blank represents a response that is left blank, validation should check to make sure that a 0 wasn’t entered for a blank and vice versa. (Matt came up with an impressive formula for this:
=IF(R$2=$Q3,IF(OR(AND(ISBLANK(R$2),NOT(ISBLANK($Q3))),AND(ISBLANK($Q3),NOT(ISBLANK(R$2)))),1,""),1)
but I’m not explaining it here.)
ii. Data analysis: what statistics are relevant and how should they be executed
1. Currently planning to use simple descriptive statistics: sample size, mean, median, maximum, and minimum
2. Will consider using tertiles, quartiles, or quintiles for the collected sets of data across all pre-project and post-project surveys received on all cases (up to six cases planned)
iii. How to organize the post-project data for Case 1
1. Create a single Excel file for all of Case 1 data, pre and post. Data calculations are not expected to exceed the capacity of the Excel program
iv. How to organize the pre- and post-data for all other cases, so as to analyze the “pre” as a group and the “post” as a group
1. Extract sheets from each Case specific file and create separate Pre and Post files
v. How to analyze the collected “pre” and “post” data sets against each other
1. Consider using Odds Ratio to evaluate the responses to the independent variables vs. the independent variables
vi. Thank you Matt!
4. Next Fellows Meeting(s): April 2, 2010 from 9:30 – 11:00 a.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. April 2: Bookclub (how does this apply to my work?) How to predict medical events effectively OR Mapping new NHANES data with mortality (Ben) – or, Connie’s data update
b. April 9: (no Connie or Matt)
c. April 16: (no Connie or Matt)
d. Future agenda to consider:
i. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
ii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
5. Fellows document – nothing this time
Recorder: Connie van Eeghen
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Mar 19, 2010
Present: Matt Bovee, Kairn Kelley
1. Start up: Book club – “The Checklist Manifesto”: The first half of the session was general discussion about Gawande’s Checklist Manifesto.
At the last meeting we left it that we would discuss today chapters 5-6. However, there was also a question about whether the CM is worth many more sessions. At the session today “we” (Kairn and Matt) decided that we would like one more session to a) wrap up for those not in attendance today, and b) to get roundtable review of "so what”
• What is the book’s value/take-away according to CROW and individual members
• What can or should be done based on the book’s message(s)? How? By whom? For what purpose?
•
Other observations:
-huge amount of effort and experience/money goes into producing a good checklist, which then has to be modified on the ground by the ‘locals’ applying it
-similar to decision support tools of other types (can involve a lot of effort and cost to develop; benefits of application differ for experienced users versus novices)
-changes/impacts distribution of authority w/in a team. Even so, everybody knows the checklist is there, and has responsibility to chime in if they have concerns or see a problem
-all about distributed cognition; a team of people decide what's important, test it out, refine it, apply it. focuses the attention of a whole lot of people on a single process
-the process of attending to and evaluating a process and its outcome(s) is in itself likely to produce beneficial results, though not all of what Gawande claims for checklists
- it seems like the checklist eliminates isolation of the provider (and others), changes the context, says the outcome is more important than the individual implementing part of the processes, the process is important to the outcome. anyone can question the process at any time they have concerns, w/o it being perceived as insubordinate.
-NB: one of the first steps in business process redesign facilitation is to get people to set aside criticism on a point-by-point basis to elicit information about the process and to help build a team approach and mentality
-introducing everyone on the team is a 'revolutionary' issue that makes explicit one of the aspects of team building
-lots of similarities/connections between business process redesign, team-building, simulation, knowledge management, decision support
Questions
-would this have an impact on the performance of people simply because someone could audit whether they used a given checklist?
-does the checklist act as a buffer between people's sensitivities and challenging gaps in the ongoing process?
2. Presentation: Peter Callas – “Data Hygiene”
Handout on “Data Management” (distributed separately by Matt)
Data coding choices/schemes
-you can do it the traditional method, w/a full traditional data dictionary, or... Peter puts all the definitions (for columns of Excel data) in the first row of the Excel worksheet. That way the data definition is right there above the column in which the data is captured.
-Different schemes work for different folks. There are advantages to using numbers as raw data (instead of “F” and “M”, or “Female” and “Male” for example), but document it; be consistent.
-If you prefer using descriptive text, plan on additional processing steps to convert those values prior to analyses.
-Typically in spreadsheets rows = observations; columns = variables/measurements. However, a table can be transposed, either in Excel or programmatically.
-Given constraints of money, time, imposition on the study participants, etc. it is still important to capture all the details you'll need, whatever scheme you prefer.
-No "one" best statistical software for analyses. Popular ones include STATA, SAS, SPSSX
-If your data is in multiple tables, it can be merged into a single table prior to analyses, or programmatically merged during analysis by the statistical software. Need identifiers in each table to match up the rows, though.
-Differences in data sets collected at different times/in different ways can lead to loss of power, loss of specificity, loss of generalizability...sometimes can have the happy ending that the sets are completely mergable, or the early data can be treated as a 'pilot' and everything is OK after that.
-Peter: “we double data enter everything in our department using Excel.” Would be nice to do it w/immediate feedback by color change trapping errors
-Recommended to use different folders for different projects, and to include date and version numbers in data sets that change over time. For example, if you recode or otherwise transform a particular piece of data for all subjects, save the revised data set in a new file that includes the date and version number of the new data set. That way you can go back and reconstruct edits over time if need be.
-When you merge data sets, are there the same number of variables? Are there variables w/the same name in the two sets (are they what they originally were supposed to be, or did one get copied over into the other?). It’s important to have some sort of logic checks in place to ensure that data is correct, whether you’ve just entered it or are transforming/recoding it…whatever.
-Logic checks can be easily created in Excel for double data entry, for example. (see attached handout, item 2.)
Topic and other plans for next meeting were not addressed.
3. Next Fellows Meeting(s): Mar 26, 2010 from 9:30 – 11:00 a.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. Mar 26: Bookclub (chapters 7 – 9 and wrap up); follow up session with Connie’s data
b. April 2: Topic suggestions: How to predict medical events effectively OR Mapping new NHANES data with mortality - Ben
c. Future agenda to consider:
i. Skype demo: Connie & Matt? Wait until Amanda K is back. Or do twice?
ii. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
iii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
Recorder: Matt Bovee
Present: Matt Bovee, Kairn Kelley
1. Start up: Book club – “The Checklist Manifesto”: The first half of the session was general discussion about Gawande’s Checklist Manifesto.
At the last meeting we left it that we would discuss today chapters 5-6. However, there was also a question about whether the CM is worth many more sessions. At the session today “we” (Kairn and Matt) decided that we would like one more session to a) wrap up for those not in attendance today, and b) to get roundtable review of "so what”
• What is the book’s value/take-away according to CROW and individual members
• What can or should be done based on the book’s message(s)? How? By whom? For what purpose?
•
Other observations:
-huge amount of effort and experience/money goes into producing a good checklist, which then has to be modified on the ground by the ‘locals’ applying it
-similar to decision support tools of other types (can involve a lot of effort and cost to develop; benefits of application differ for experienced users versus novices)
-changes/impacts distribution of authority w/in a team. Even so, everybody knows the checklist is there, and has responsibility to chime in if they have concerns or see a problem
-all about distributed cognition; a team of people decide what's important, test it out, refine it, apply it. focuses the attention of a whole lot of people on a single process
-the process of attending to and evaluating a process and its outcome(s) is in itself likely to produce beneficial results, though not all of what Gawande claims for checklists
- it seems like the checklist eliminates isolation of the provider (and others), changes the context, says the outcome is more important than the individual implementing part of the processes, the process is important to the outcome. anyone can question the process at any time they have concerns, w/o it being perceived as insubordinate.
-NB: one of the first steps in business process redesign facilitation is to get people to set aside criticism on a point-by-point basis to elicit information about the process and to help build a team approach and mentality
-introducing everyone on the team is a 'revolutionary' issue that makes explicit one of the aspects of team building
-lots of similarities/connections between business process redesign, team-building, simulation, knowledge management, decision support
Questions
-would this have an impact on the performance of people simply because someone could audit whether they used a given checklist?
-does the checklist act as a buffer between people's sensitivities and challenging gaps in the ongoing process?
2. Presentation: Peter Callas – “Data Hygiene”
Handout on “Data Management” (distributed separately by Matt)
Data coding choices/schemes
-you can do it the traditional method, w/a full traditional data dictionary, or... Peter puts all the definitions (for columns of Excel data) in the first row of the Excel worksheet. That way the data definition is right there above the column in which the data is captured.
-Different schemes work for different folks. There are advantages to using numbers as raw data (instead of “F” and “M”, or “Female” and “Male” for example), but document it; be consistent.
-If you prefer using descriptive text, plan on additional processing steps to convert those values prior to analyses.
-Typically in spreadsheets rows = observations; columns = variables/measurements. However, a table can be transposed, either in Excel or programmatically.
-Given constraints of money, time, imposition on the study participants, etc. it is still important to capture all the details you'll need, whatever scheme you prefer.
-No "one" best statistical software for analyses. Popular ones include STATA, SAS, SPSSX
-If your data is in multiple tables, it can be merged into a single table prior to analyses, or programmatically merged during analysis by the statistical software. Need identifiers in each table to match up the rows, though.
-Differences in data sets collected at different times/in different ways can lead to loss of power, loss of specificity, loss of generalizability...sometimes can have the happy ending that the sets are completely mergable, or the early data can be treated as a 'pilot' and everything is OK after that.
-Peter: “we double data enter everything in our department using Excel.” Would be nice to do it w/immediate feedback by color change trapping errors
-Recommended to use different folders for different projects, and to include date and version numbers in data sets that change over time. For example, if you recode or otherwise transform a particular piece of data for all subjects, save the revised data set in a new file that includes the date and version number of the new data set. That way you can go back and reconstruct edits over time if need be.
-When you merge data sets, are there the same number of variables? Are there variables w/the same name in the two sets (are they what they originally were supposed to be, or did one get copied over into the other?). It’s important to have some sort of logic checks in place to ensure that data is correct, whether you’ve just entered it or are transforming/recoding it…whatever.
-Logic checks can be easily created in Excel for double data entry, for example. (see attached handout, item 2.)
Topic and other plans for next meeting were not addressed.
3. Next Fellows Meeting(s): Mar 26, 2010 from 9:30 – 11:00 a.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. Mar 26: Bookclub (chapters 7 – 9 and wrap up); follow up session with Connie’s data
b. April 2: Topic suggestions: How to predict medical events effectively OR Mapping new NHANES data with mortality - Ben
c. Future agenda to consider:
i. Skype demo: Connie & Matt? Wait until Amanda K is back. Or do twice?
ii. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
iii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
Recorder: Matt Bovee
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Health Care System in Denmark ~ Monday, March 22nd ~ Ambassador Friis Peterson & US Senator Bernie Sanders
Dean Rick Morin invites you to join
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders
and his guest
Mr. Friis Arne Peterson
Ambassador of Denmark to the United States
For a presentation and discussion on
the health care system in Denmark
Monday, March 22
12:00 Noon
Sullivan Classroom ~ Medical Education Center
Light lunch will be provided.
Ben needs input...
On April 2, I have agreed to present some new material for CROW (Fellows Workshop). After we do the last discussion of Gawande's Checklist Manifesto, I can either:
Demonstrate the use of NHANES data concentrating on the newly-released long-term mortality follow-up of ~20,000 respondants over 15 years. This would involve investigating a hypothesis posed by Amanda that aspirin and ibuprofen may interact negatively to reduce the apparent mortality effects of either one alone. The new additions to NHANES allow us to do some pretty powerful pharmacoepidemiology right from the comfort of our laptops.
OR
Talk about how to make predictions using data. What is the role of prediction in clinical care? In testing hypotheses? What are the methods available? How should we judge predictions? This talk would be more theoretical without a data set to demonstrate on.
Which talk would you prefer? Why?
(Please use the comments to answer. Thanks.)
Demonstrate the use of NHANES data concentrating on the newly-released long-term mortality follow-up of ~20,000 respondants over 15 years. This would involve investigating a hypothesis posed by Amanda that aspirin and ibuprofen may interact negatively to reduce the apparent mortality effects of either one alone. The new additions to NHANES allow us to do some pretty powerful pharmacoepidemiology right from the comfort of our laptops.
AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project - Free training available
Register Now for the
1-Day Hands-On HCUP Training Workshop on 4/26/2010 at AHRQ Headquarters
On April 26, AHRQ will sponsor a
full-day hands-on workshop for health services researchers interested in using
HCUP data resources. Participants will
be exposed to HCUP databases and related tools (including HCUPnet) through
hands-on manipulation of the data, including file construction, producing
national estimates, creating State-level output, and applying critical methods
to produce correct standard deviations.
Access to the HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) and State Inpatient
Databases (SID) will be provided during the workshop.
The course will be held at AHRQ Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. There is no registration fee to attend. Additional information and the registration form for this event are available here. Registration is limited. We hope to see you there!
The course will be held at AHRQ Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. There is no registration fee to attend. Additional information and the registration form for this event are available here. Registration is limited. We hope to see you there!
Register Now for the
HCUP Databases and Tools Webinar Series on 4/12/2010 and 5/10/2010!
AHRQ will be hosting a
two-part webinar series on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
databases, products, and tools.
Registration is now open for the HCUP Webinar Series. There is no
registration fee to attend.
The first one-hour
session will introduce health services and policy researchers to the HCUP
databases and related resources that can enhance their research studies by
providing a general overview of the HCUP databases. This webinar will be offered on Monday, April
12, 2010 at 2:00-3:00 PM EST.
The
second one-hour session will be offered on Monday, May 10, 2010 at 2:00-3:00 PM
EST. This webinar will focus on the HCUP products and tools, with particular
emphasis on HCUPnet, our free online data query system.
Registration
information is available here. Please note that once registration reaches
capacity, you will no longer be able to register. For additional questions, please contact HCUP
User Support at hcup@ahrq.gov.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Mar 12, 2010
Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Mar 12, 2010
Present: Matt Bovee, Kairn Kelley, Ben Littenberg, Mike MacCaskey, Charlie MacLean, Jeff Mogielnicki, Connie van Eeghen
Absent: Abby Crocker, Kim Dittus, Rodger Kessler
1. Start up: Book club – “The Checklist Manifesto”: The first half of the session was general discussion about Gawande’s Checklist Manifesto.
a. Master builders and their empirically based knowledge base (in a guild based organization)
b. “Against the Gods”: if you have no theory of probability, there is no reason to invest
c. Amanda: the inside truth about the construction industry re: Chapter 3; Gawande tells only half the story
i. We don’t have a history of using the simple tools we’ve got
ii. Sometimes the tools we’ve got are wrong (e.g. administering antibiotics for all presumed pneumonia patients admitted to the ED -> antibiotic induced diarrhea, some of which results in death)
d. Both building and health care have a reactive component – both have to adapt rapidly to the “situation on the ground” – which still supports the usefulness of the checklist
e. So… why is the use of checklists not blanketing the industry
i. Resistance to change
ii. Ability to change
iii. Buy in for change – from leadership – with the time needed to make it happen
f. Next week: chapters 5 and 6
2. Roundtable, with update, short term goals, long term goals
a. Ben: How to find the checklist for writing articles – see the Equator Network link on the Blogspot. Ben’s own checklist to reviewing articles:
i. Who did it – watch for corporate interests in what appears to be medical research
ii. When – how old? Is there rebuttal, discussion, and new information? Has it stood the test of time?
iii. Why – what’s the research question (the goal)? What’s the study question (the aim)? What’s the analytic question (the application of the aim in this case)?
iv. What – what was the design? (or, look at the conclusion next, and decide if the rest of the article is worth the time investment needed. In other words, is this study relevant?)
v. How – execution and analysis? (is it valid: internal and external validity)
vi. Discussion – what are the implications?
b. Charlie: Checklist for reviewing articles by Sackett, et al. (2000): “Evidence Based Medicine” which includes color coded index cards that provide checklists for review
3. Next Fellows Meeting(s): Mar 19, 2010 from 9:30 – 11:00 a.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. Mar 19: Bookclub (chapters 5 & 6); Peter Callas on data entry of results
b. Mar 26: Bookclub (chapters 7 – 9); data follow up session
c. April 2: Bookclub (how does this apply to my work?) How to predict medical events effectively OR Mapping new NHANES data with mortality (Ben)
d. Future agenda to consider:
i. Skype demo: Connie & Matt? Wait until Amanda K is back. Or do twice?
ii. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
iii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
4. Fellows document – nothing new this time
Recorder: Connie van Eeghen
Present: Matt Bovee, Kairn Kelley, Ben Littenberg, Mike MacCaskey, Charlie MacLean, Jeff Mogielnicki, Connie van Eeghen
Absent: Abby Crocker, Kim Dittus, Rodger Kessler
1. Start up: Book club – “The Checklist Manifesto”: The first half of the session was general discussion about Gawande’s Checklist Manifesto.
a. Master builders and their empirically based knowledge base (in a guild based organization)
b. “Against the Gods”: if you have no theory of probability, there is no reason to invest
c. Amanda: the inside truth about the construction industry re: Chapter 3; Gawande tells only half the story
i. We don’t have a history of using the simple tools we’ve got
ii. Sometimes the tools we’ve got are wrong (e.g. administering antibiotics for all presumed pneumonia patients admitted to the ED -> antibiotic induced diarrhea, some of which results in death)
d. Both building and health care have a reactive component – both have to adapt rapidly to the “situation on the ground” – which still supports the usefulness of the checklist
e. So… why is the use of checklists not blanketing the industry
i. Resistance to change
ii. Ability to change
iii. Buy in for change – from leadership – with the time needed to make it happen
f. Next week: chapters 5 and 6
2. Roundtable, with update, short term goals, long term goals
a. Ben: How to find the checklist for writing articles – see the Equator Network link on the Blogspot. Ben’s own checklist to reviewing articles:
i. Who did it – watch for corporate interests in what appears to be medical research
ii. When – how old? Is there rebuttal, discussion, and new information? Has it stood the test of time?
iii. Why – what’s the research question (the goal)? What’s the study question (the aim)? What’s the analytic question (the application of the aim in this case)?
iv. What – what was the design? (or, look at the conclusion next, and decide if the rest of the article is worth the time investment needed. In other words, is this study relevant?)
v. How – execution and analysis? (is it valid: internal and external validity)
vi. Discussion – what are the implications?
b. Charlie: Checklist for reviewing articles by Sackett, et al. (2000): “Evidence Based Medicine” which includes color coded index cards that provide checklists for review
3. Next Fellows Meeting(s): Mar 19, 2010 from 9:30 – 11:00 a.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. Mar 19: Bookclub (chapters 5 & 6); Peter Callas on data entry of results
b. Mar 26: Bookclub (chapters 7 – 9); data follow up session
c. April 2: Bookclub (how does this apply to my work?) How to predict medical events effectively OR Mapping new NHANES data with mortality (Ben)
d. Future agenda to consider:
i. Skype demo: Connie & Matt? Wait until Amanda K is back. Or do twice?
ii. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
iii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
4. Fellows document – nothing new this time
Recorder: Connie van Eeghen
Helen Caldicott to speak locally
Helen Caldicott (born 1938) is an Australian
physician,
author, and anti-nuclear advocate who
has founded several associations dedicated to opposing the use of depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, war and
military action in general.
She will be speaking at St. Micheal's College on March 29 at 6.00 PM. The event is free and open to the public.
McCarthy Arts Center tel 654 2205 or 496 5466 for more information.
She will be speaking at St. Micheal's College on March 29 at 6.00 PM. The event is free and open to the public.
McCarthy Arts Center tel 654 2205 or 496 5466 for more information.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
FW: University Scholar Presentation - March 24, 2010
_______
From: Kathleen Merchant [Kathleen.Merchant@uvm.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:09 AM
To: Kathleen Liang
Subject: University Scholar Presentation - March 24, 2010
From: Kathleen Merchant [Kathleen.Merchant@uvm.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:09 AM
To: Kathleen Liang
Subject: University Scholar Presentation - March 24, 2010
UNIVERSITY SCHOLAR SEMINAR
Presented by
Ralph C. Budd, MD
Professor of Medicine
Director, Vermont Center for Immunology and Infectious Diseases
A Matter of Life and Death for a Cell
Nothing is so fundamental to the function of cells as the processes that regulate their growth and death. Given how opposite these processes are, it seems logical that they would be regulated by very different signals. However, a serendipitous observation by a UVM graduate student in 1998 suggested that growth and death of cells of the immune system might actually share certain signaling molecules. As paradoxical as that seemed at the time, further studies by ourselves and other groups confirmed this observation. We have spent the 12 years since then working to define how cells of the immune system manage to partially activate this "death" pathway just enough to permit cell growth without pushing the cell into a death spiral, and also wondering why cells are wired in this manner in the first place.
We now understand much about how a cell regulates this life versus death balance in signaling, and have come to appreciate that this concept applies to many cell types, not just immune cells. The cell's fate is determined by an intricate pas de deux of two molecules, one a death promoter and the other its inhibitor. The location and tempo of their dance is critical to the outcome.
As we now strive to define the conditions that drive this switch to life or death, initial studies suggest that the overall metabolic state of the cell may be central to this regulation. This brings us back to the opening University Scholar lecture last fall by Dr. Russell Tracy. He presented an intriguing "inflammation hypothesis of aging" at the level of an organ or an entire organism. We feel we may be witnessing a similar process at the level of individual cells. Recent studies suggest that similar death molecules may be central to the inflammation observed in obesity and other metabolic disorders.
4:00 PM, Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Memorial Lounge, Waterman Building
The University Scholar Awards Program annually recognizes distinguished faculty members for sustained excellence in research and scholarly activities. The Scholars are selected by a panel of distinguished faculty, based upon nominations submitted by UVM colleagues.
Refreshments at 3:45 and after the Seminar Sponsored by the Graduate College
Thursday, March 11, 2010
FW: Honors College Faculty Seminar
From: UVM Faculty [UVMFACULTY@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Abu Rizvi [Gary.Derr@uvm.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:20 AM
To: UVMFACULTY@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Honors College Faculty Seminar
[cid:part1.05000104.02060508@uvm.edu]
The University of Vermont
Honors College
________________________________
March 11, 2010
Colleagues:
It is with great pleasure that I announce the seventh Honors College Faculty Seminar, this year titled, Neuroscience Beyond Biology and Medicine: The Role of Neuroscience in Non-science Disciplines, to be held August 16-18, 2010. The seminar's coordinators are Bill Falls, Chair and Associate Professor of Psychology, and Donna Toufexis, Assistant Professor of Psychology. They will be assisted by Cindy Forehand, Professor of Anatomy and Neurobiology. Participants will explore the brain and the techniques used to study it, discuss important texts and ideas concerning the interface of neuroscience and disciplines not traditionally associated with it, and consider strategies for teaching and research in this evolving area.
The seminar considers the assumption that all human behavior, broadly defined, is a product of the brain, such that the brain is a constructive as well as constraining factor in human behavior. Much thinking along these lines took place in the 1990s, identified as "the decade of the brain." Since then, research in neuroscience has brought unprecedented discoveries and a broadening of inquiry well beyond biology, medicine and psychology. The goal of this seminar is to encourage UVM faculty members to inquire into the place of neuroscientific approaches to the humanities, the arts, business, law and related fields.
The coordinators of the seminar intend to foster a rich and stimulating dialogue among colleagues and to promote a university-wide conversation about the broad impact of the scientific study of the brain. They hope to stimulate the development of neuroscientific inquiry in the scholarship and teaching of disciplines not traditionally associated with neuroscience and to offer neuroscientists a broader perspective on their discipline and possibilities for new domains of inquiry. The seminar will explore questions such as:
1. How is the human brain different from the brains of other species?
2. How is the human brain organized and how does human behavior emerge from this organization?
3. How is the brain related to emotion and how might this relation influence cognition?
4. How does the evolution of the human brain provide new insights into the arts, humanities, and theories of business and law?
5. What are the neurophysiological underpinnings of creativity, culture, religion and ethics?
6. Does neuroscience provide an opportunity to create testable hypotheses in the arts and humanities?
7. Presenters and panelists from the UVM community will share their views on these and other related topics.
The seminar will take place over three days. The first day will be devoted to exploring the central nervous system and its evolution; the methods used by neuroscientists to understand how the brain generates behavior; and whether all behavior can be reduced to the functioning of neurons. The first day will also involve participants exploring human neuroanatomy at first hand by studying human brain specimens. The second day will concern neuroscientific inquiry into the arts, humanities, business and law. The third day will bring together emerging themes as they relate to scholarship and teaching and will consider ways to expand neuroscientific approaches in the arts, humanities, business and law. The seminar will conclude with a dinner hosted by President Fogel.
The seminar will benefit from strong disciplinary and interdisciplinary engagement and the representation of diverse viewpoints. Therefore, faculty members from all UVM colleges and disciplines are strongly encouraged to apply for the seminar. Participants will receive a grant of $425. They should commit to participating in the events of all three days, to reading seminar materials distributed in advance, and to evaluating the success of the seminar. Participants will receive reading materials in early summer to allow for preparation. There is space in the seminar for up to 20 participants, who will be selected to insure a diverse and collegial group.
Faculty members are invited to submit a letter of interest and a short C.V (no more than four pages) addressed to Abu Rizvi, Dean of the Honors College, 50 University Heights, by April 16, 2010. They should indicate any experience, special concerns or expertise they would bring to this seminar. Application materials should be sent via email attachment to Patricia.Redmond@uvm.edu<mailto:email%20to:%20Patricia.Redmond@uvm.edu>. Applicants will be notified of selection decisions by April 30, 2010. Please feel free to contact me at 6-9100 or Abu.Rizvi@uvm.edu<mailto:email%20to:%20Abu.Rizvi@uvm.edu> if you have questions.
Abu Rizvi
Dean, Honors College
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Mar 12, 2010
Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Mar 5, 2010
Present: Abbey Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Amanda Kennedy, Damon Lease, Ben Littenberg. Mike MacCaskey, Charlie MacLean, Jeff Mogielnicki, Jeff Seward
Absent: Matt Bovee, Abby Crocker, Kim Dittus, Liz Chen, Rodger Kessler, Maria Ramos, Alan Rubin, Connie van Eeghen
1. Start up: Book club – “The Checklist Manifesto”
a. The first half of the session was general discussion about Gawande’s Checklist Manifesto.
2. Roundtable, with update, short term goals, long term goals
a. Kim: provided an update on her research during the second half of our session. The details of all her funded projects, proposals and articles in development, and clinical concerns were too much for this note-taker-after-the-fact to keep up with. Although all work was interesting there was some suggestion by faculty that Kim may need to scale back on something.
b. From the whiteboard during discussion:
Checklist for a Request to a Data Analyst.
All requests for information from an analyst should contain these four details IF, THEN, HOW, and WHEN.
IF= your eligibility criteria (IF the patient had a visit between 1/1/2009 and 12/31/09, received chemo, age 21-65…)
THEN= the variables you want to know about (THEN give me their name, DOB, address…)
HOW= the format you want it in, usually a spreadsheet (either XLS so it can be opened by Microsoft products or CSV, comma separated values, so it can be handled by any text reader)
WHEN= when you need the results
Other helpful hints: provide the terms number (a.k.a., IRB) with the request, plan for the process to be iterative (i.e., expect that what’s returned the first time will be wrong), start by asking for less information (e.g., only the number of patients who fit the criteria or the data for only one month worth of patients) until you’re sure you’ve got the right IF criteria defined.
3. Next Fellows Meeting(s): Mar 12, 2010 from 9:30 – 11:00 a.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. Mar 12: Bookclub; Kim Luebbers – IRB process at UVM
b. Mar 19: Bookclub; Peter Callas on data entry of results
c. Mar 26: bookclub
d. Future agenda to consider:
i. Skype demo: Connie & Matt? Wait until Amanda K is back. Or do twice?
ii. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
iii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
4. Fellows document – nothing new this time
Recorder: Kairn Kelley
Present: Abbey Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Amanda Kennedy, Damon Lease, Ben Littenberg. Mike MacCaskey, Charlie MacLean, Jeff Mogielnicki, Jeff Seward
Absent: Matt Bovee, Abby Crocker, Kim Dittus, Liz Chen, Rodger Kessler, Maria Ramos, Alan Rubin, Connie van Eeghen
1. Start up: Book club – “The Checklist Manifesto”
a. The first half of the session was general discussion about Gawande’s Checklist Manifesto.
2. Roundtable, with update, short term goals, long term goals
a. Kim: provided an update on her research during the second half of our session. The details of all her funded projects, proposals and articles in development, and clinical concerns were too much for this note-taker-after-the-fact to keep up with. Although all work was interesting there was some suggestion by faculty that Kim may need to scale back on something.
b. From the whiteboard during discussion:
Checklist for a Request to a Data Analyst.
All requests for information from an analyst should contain these four details IF, THEN, HOW, and WHEN.
IF= your eligibility criteria (IF the patient had a visit between 1/1/2009 and 12/31/09, received chemo, age 21-65…)
THEN= the variables you want to know about (THEN give me their name, DOB, address…)
HOW= the format you want it in, usually a spreadsheet (either XLS so it can be opened by Microsoft products or CSV, comma separated values, so it can be handled by any text reader)
WHEN= when you need the results
Other helpful hints: provide the terms number (a.k.a., IRB) with the request, plan for the process to be iterative (i.e., expect that what’s returned the first time will be wrong), start by asking for less information (e.g., only the number of patients who fit the criteria or the data for only one month worth of patients) until you’re sure you’ve got the right IF criteria defined.
3. Next Fellows Meeting(s): Mar 12, 2010 from 9:30 – 11:00 a.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. Mar 12: Bookclub; Kim Luebbers – IRB process at UVM
b. Mar 19: Bookclub; Peter Callas on data entry of results
c. Mar 26: bookclub
d. Future agenda to consider:
i. Skype demo: Connie & Matt? Wait until Amanda K is back. Or do twice?
ii. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
iii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
4. Fellows document – nothing new this time
Recorder: Kairn Kelley
Monday, March 8, 2010
What is CER?
For those of you still trying to understand...here is a link to an editorial by Carolyn Clancey and Jean Slutsky from AHRQ re Comparative Effectiveness Research.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/170/5/403
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/170/5/403
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Fw: Fellowship Opportunity - Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health Care
-Benjamin Littenberg
From: Vega, Wanda I.
To: Littenberg, Benjamin
Sent: Wed Mar 03 12:47:19 2010
Subject: Fellowship Opportunity - Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health Care
Dear Dr. Littenberg,
As the Associate Director of the Disparities Solutions Center (DSC) at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), I am writing to let you know about a year-long fellowship at our center that may be of interest to your fellows and qualified residents.
Now in its third year, The Aetna/DSC HealthCare Disparities Fellowship Program was created to develop health care professionals and leaders who will address racial and ethnic disparities in health care. The fellowship is based at the DSC which is housed within the Mongan Institute for Health Policy at MGH. Under the guidance of DSC faculty, fellows will conduct a research project to address racial/ethnic disparities in health care. Fellows will be involved in our portfolio of work at the DSC, and receive support through access to resources and faculty associated with the DSC. Throughout the year, fellows will have the opportunity to participate in local and national conferences and seminars sponsored by the DSC. At the completion of the fellowship, fellows will be equipped with the skills, tools, experience to be leaders in reducing racial/ethnic disparities in health care.
The fellowship is open to health care professionals at the post-doctoral level (PhD), post-residency level (MD/MPH), or graduate level (RN/MPH, NP etc.). As we are currently accepting application through March 12th, we would greatly appreciate it if you could share our fellowship opportunity with your fellows and qualified residents. Strong applicants will have strong prior research experience or the equivalent through additional training such as an MPH. Please refer potential candidates to our website, mghDisparitiesSolutions.org for more information.
We appreciate your support and please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
Thank you,
Alexander R. Green, MD, MPH
Associate Director, Disparities Solutions Center
Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
TRC Seminar: Research-Based Alternatives to the Car
|
Monday, March 1, 2010
MEPS Data User Workshop - Registration Now Open
Upcoming Workshop - Registration Open
Registration is now open for the upcoming Two-day hands-on MEPS Data User Workshop in Rockville, MD, on April 26-27, 2010. For registration and more information, go to Workshops & Events http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/about_meps/workshops_events.jsp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
