Dataset Information

Supporting clinical research professionals through educational innovations.

ABSTRACT: Clinical Research Professionals (CRPs) are essential members of the Clinical and Translational Research Workforce. Many academic medical institutions struggle to recruit and retain these vital team members. One strategy to increase job satisfaction and promote the retention of CRPs is through educational initiatives that provide training and professional development. The South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research (SCTR) Institute Workforce Development (WD) team at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) developed several trainings as part of our larger educational portfolio for CRPs. In 2022 WD implemented a digital badge micro-credential for SCTR's Core Clinical Research Training (CCRT) course in collaboration with institution-wide education and technology offices. Beginning in January 2023, individuals were able to earn the CCRT Certified Digital Badge upon successful completion of the CCRT course.

SUBMITTER: Lee-Chavarria D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10800862 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Supporting clinical research professionals through educational innovations.

Lee-Chavarria Diana D Loucks Tammy L TL Paranal Rechelle R Sampson Royce R Feghali-Bostwick Carol C

Frontiers in pharmacology 20240108

Clinical Research Professionals (CRPs) are essential members of the Clinical and Translational Research Workforce. Many academic medical institutions struggle to recruit and retain these vital team members. One strategy to increase job satisfaction and promote the retention of CRPs is through educational initiatives that provide training and professional development. The South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research (SCTR) Institute Workforce Development (WD) team at the Medical University ...[more]

PMID: 38259267

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic wounds such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and pressure ulcers are a massive burden to health care facilities. Many randomized controlled trials on different wound care elements have been conducted and published in the Cochrane Library, all of which have only a low evidential basis. Thus, health care professionals are forced to rely on their own experience when making decisions regarding wound care. To progress from experience-based practice to evidence-based wound care practice, clinical decision support systems (CDSS) that help health care providers with decision-making in a clinical workflow have been developed. These systems have proven useful in many areas of the health care sector, partly because they have increased the quality of care, and partially because they have generated a solid basis for evidence-based practice. However, no systematic reviews focus on CDSS within the field of wound care to chronic wounds.ObjectiveThe aims of this systematic literature review are (1) to identify models used in CDSS that support health care professionals treating chronic wounds, and (2) to classify each clinical decision support model according to selected variables and to create an overview.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using 6 databases. This systematic literature review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement for systematic reviews. The search strategy consisted of three facets, respectively: Facet 1 (Algorithm), Facet 2 (Wound care) and Facet 3 (Clinical decision support system). Studies based on acute wounds or trauma were excluded. Similarly, studies that presented guidelines, protocols and instructions were excluded, since they do not require progression along an active chain of reasoning from the clinicians, just their focus. Finally, studies were excluded if they had not undergone a peer review process. The following aspects were extracted from each article: authors, year, country, the sample size of data and variables describing the type of clinical decision support models. The decision support models were classified in 2 ways: quantitative decision support models, and qualitative decision support models.ResultsThe final number of studies included in the systematic literature review was 10. These clinical decision support models included 4/10 (40%) quantitative decision support models and 6/10 (60%) qualitative decision support models. The earliest article was published in 2007, and the most recent was from 2015.ConclusionsThe clinical decision support models were targeted at a variety of different types of chronic wounds. The degree of accessibility of the inference engines varied. Quantitative models served as the engine and were invisible to the health care professionals, while qualitative models required interaction with the user.

Dataset Information

Supporting clinical research professionals through educational innovations.

Publications

Supporting clinical research professionals through educational innovations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets