Browsing by Author "Bell, Douglas S."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Characteristics of the National Applicant Pool for Clinical Informatics Fellowships (2016-2017)
    (AMIA, 2018) Bell, Douglas S.; Baldwin, Kevin; Bell, Elijah J.; Lehmann, Christoph U.; Webber, Emily C.; Mohan, Vishnu; Leu, Michael G.; Hoffman, Jeffrey M.; Kaelber, David C.; Landman, Adam B.; Hron, Jonathan; Silverman, Howard D.; Levy, Bruce; Elkin, Peter L.; Poon, Eric; Luberti, Anthony A.; Finnell, John T.; Safran, Charles; Palma, Jonathan P.; Forman, Bruce H.; Kileen, James; Arvin, David; Pfeffer, Michael; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    We conducted a national study to assess the numbers and diversity of applicants for 2016 and 2017 clinical informatics fellowship positions. In each year, we collected data on the number of applications that programs received from candidates who were ultimately successful vs. unsuccessful. In 2017, we also conducted an anonymous applicant survey. Successful candidates applied to an average of 4.2 and 5.5 programs for 2016 and 2017, respectively. In the survey, unsuccessful candidates reported applying to fewer programs. Assuming unsuccessful candidates submitted between 2-5 applications each, the total applicant pool numbered 42-69 for 2016 (competing for 24 positions) and 52-85 for 2017 (competing for 30 positions). Among survey respondents (n=33), 24% were female, 1 was black and none were Hispanic. We conclude that greater efforts are needed to enhance interest in clinical informatics among medical students and residents, particularly among women and members of underrepresented minority groups.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Structure and Funding of Clinical Informatics Fellowships: A National Survey of Program Directors
    (Thieme, 2024) Patel, Tushar N.; Chaise, Aaron J.; Hanna, John J.; Patel, Kunal P.; Kochendorfer, Karl M.; Medford, Richard J.; Mize, Dara E.; Melnick, Edward R.; Hron, Jonathan D.; Youens, Kenneth; Pandita, Deepti; Leu, Michael G.; Ator, Gregory A.; Yu, Feliciano; Genes, Nicholas; Baker, Carrie K.; Bell, Douglas S.; Pevnick, Joshua M.; Conrad, Steven A.; Chandawarkar, Aarti R.; Rogers, Kendall M.; Kaelber, David C.; Singh, Ila R.; Levy, Bruce P.; Finnell, John T.; Kannry, Joseph; Pageler, Natalie M.; Mohan, Vishnu; Lehmann, Christoph U.; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: In 2011, the American Board of Medical Specialties established clinical informatics (CI) as a subspecialty in medicine, jointly administered by the American Board of Pathology and the American Board of Preventive Medicine. Subsequently, many institutions created CI fellowship training programs to meet the growing need for informaticists. Although many programs share similar features, there is considerable variation in program funding and administrative structures. Objectives: The aim of our study was to characterize CI fellowship program features, including governance structures, funding sources, and expenses. Methods: We created a cross-sectional online REDCap survey with 44 items requesting information on program administration, fellows, administrative support, funding sources, and expenses. We surveyed program directors of programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education between 2014 and 2021. Results: We invited 54 program directors, of which 41 (76%) completed the survey. The average administrative support received was $27,732/year. Most programs (85.4%) were accredited to have two or more fellows per year. Programs were administratively housed under six departments: Internal Medicine (17; 41.5%), Pediatrics (7; 17.1%), Pathology (6; 14.6%), Family Medicine (6; 14.6%), Emergency Medicine (4; 9.8%), and Anesthesiology (1; 2.4%). Funding sources for CI fellowship program directors included: hospital or health systems (28.3%), clinical departments (28.3%), graduate medical education office (13.2%), biomedical informatics department (9.4%), hospital information technology (9.4%), research and grants (7.5%), and other sources (3.8%) that included philanthropy and external entities. Conclusion: CI fellowships have been established in leading academic and community health care systems across the country. Due to their unique training requirements, these programs require significant resources for education, administration, and recruitment. There continues to be considerable heterogeneity in funding models between programs. Our survey findings reinforce the need for reformed federal funding models for informatics practice and training.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Sustainability considerations for clinical and translational research informatics infrastructure
    (Cambridge University Press, 2018-10) Obeid, Jihad S.; Tarczy-Hornoch, Peter; Harris, Paul A.; Barnett, William K.; Anderson, Nicholas R.; Embi, Peter J.; Hogan, William R.; Bell, Douglas S.; McIntosh, Leslie D.; Knosp, Boyd; Tachinardi, Umberto; Cimino, James J.; Wehbe, Firas H.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    A robust biomedical informatics infrastructure is essential for academic health centers engaged in translational research. There are no templates for what such an infrastructure encompasses or how it is funded. An informatics workgroup within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards network conducted an analysis to identify the scope, governance, and funding of this infrastructure. After we identified the essential components of an informatics infrastructure, we surveyed informatics leaders at network institutions about the governance and sustainability of the different components. Results from 42 survey respondents showed significant variations in governance and sustainability; however, some trends also emerged. Core informatics components such as electronic data capture systems, electronic health records data repositories, and related tools had mixed models of funding including, fee-for-service, extramural grants, and institutional support. Several key components such as regulatory systems (e.g., electronic Institutional Review Board [IRB] systems, grants, and contracts), security systems, data warehouses, and clinical trials management systems were overwhelmingly supported as institutional infrastructure. The findings highlighted in this report are worth noting for academic health centers and funding agencies involved in planning current and future informatics infrastructure, which provides the foundation for a robust, data-driven clinical and translational research program.