Teaching Principles of Medical Innovation and Entrepreneurship Through Hackathons: Case Study and Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Innovation and entrepreneurship training are increasingly recognized as being important in medical education. However, the lack of faculty comfort with the instruction of these concepts as well as limited scholarly recognition for this work has limited the implementation of curricula focused on these skills. Furthermore, this lack of familiarity limits the inclusion of practicing physicians in health care innovation, where their experience is valuable. Hackathons are intense innovation competitions that use gamification principles to increase comfort with creative thinking, problem-solving, and interpersonal collaboration, but they require further exploration in medical innovation.

OBJECTIVE

To address this, we aimed to design, implement, and evaluate a health care hackathon with 2 main goals: to improve emergency physician familiarity with the principles of health care innovation and entrepreneurship and to develop innovative solutions to 3 discrete problems facing emergency medicine physicians and patients.

METHODS

We used previously described practices for conducting hackathons to develop and implement our hackathon (HackED!). We partnered with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Stanford School of Biodesign, and the Institute of Design at Stanford (d.school) to lend institutional support and expertise in health care innovation to our event. We determined a location, time frame, and logistics for the competition and settled on 3 use cases for teams to work on. We planned to explore the learning experience of participants within a pragmatic paradigm and complete an abductive thematic analysis using data from a variety of sources.

RESULTS

HackED! took place from October 1-3, 2022. In all, 3 teams developed novel solutions to each of the use cases. Our investigation into the educational experience of participants suggested that the event was valuable and uncovered themes suggesting that the learning experience could be understood within a framework from entrepreneurship education not previously described in relation to hackathons.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care hackathons appear to be a viable method of increasing physician experience with innovation and entrepreneurship principles and addressing complex problems in health care. Hackathons should be considered as part of educational programs that focus on these concepts.

Hackathon challenge as a pedagogical tool to teach interdisciplinary problem-solving skills for population health

Background: Effectively addressing complex challenges involving population health often requires interdisciplinary action. Teaching both the value and the skills to collaborate effectively across disciplines can better equip students to lead and develop solutions to a range of complex challenges.   Methods: The Biosecurity and Pandemic Resilience course deployed Hackathon, which utilizes Stanford's Design Thinking methodology. In the winter of 2020, Hackathon challenged 187 students to devise implementable solutions that decrease the transmission of COVID-19. Post Hackathon, students responded to an anonymous survey reflecting on their experience. Results: Students developed 52 solutions to help manage the COVID-19 outbreak. Most students (58%) specifically cited the interdisciplinary approach and diverse group expertise as their most valuable takeaway, and 68% of students indicated that given proper resources they would continue working to implement their project. Conclusions: The Hackathon challenge utilizing Design Thinking curriculum can be a valuable tool in equipping students to address complex population health issues and can also be deployed in other contexts. The authors plan to further enhance and adapt the Hackathon challenge to explore additional use cases.

Humming Is as Effective as Valsalva’s Maneuver and Trendelenburg’s Position for Ultrasonographic Visualization of the Jugular Venous System and Common Femoral Veins

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to compare ultrasonographic visualization of the jugular and common femoral veins by using a novel technique (humming) and 2 conventional techniques (Valsalva's maneuver and Trendelenburg's position). The Valsalva's maneuver and Trendelenburg's position are common methods for producing venous distention, aiding ultrasonographically guided identification and cannulation of the jugular and common femoral veins. We hypothesize that humming is as effective as either Valsalva's maneuver or Trendelenburg's position for distention and ultrasonographic visualization of these procedurally important blood vessels. Herein, we investigate a new method of venous distension that may aid in the placement of central venous catheters by ultrasonographic guidance.

METHODS

Healthy, normal volunteers aged 28 to 67 years were enrolled. Each subject's internal jugular, external jugular, and common femoral veins were measured in cross-section by ultrasonograph during rest (baseline), humming, Valsalva's maneuver, and Trendelenburg's position. Three measurements were recorded per observation in each position. Subjects were used as their own controls, and measurements were normalized to percentage increase in diameter during each maneuver or position for later comparison.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 7 subjects, with a mean age of 47 years. Cross-sectional area was calculated for each vessel in 3 groups: baseline/control, Valsalva, Trendelenburg, and humming. The mean percentage change (+/-SD) relative to baseline cross-sectional area of the jugular vessels for each subject were external jugular vein: humming 134%+/-25% (95% confidence interval [CI] 124.9% to 146.9%), Valsalva 136%+/-23% (95% CI 121.3% to 147.5%), Trendelenburg 137%+/-32% (95% CI 120.7% to 156.9%); internal jugular vein: humming 137%+/-27% (95% CI 119.4% to 148.2%), Valsalva 139%+/-24% (95% CI 122.4% to 148.7%), Trendelenburg 141%+/-35% (95% CI 116.5% to 156.5%); common femoral vein: humming 131%+/-15% (95% CI 120.4% to 139.1%), Valsalva 139%+/-18% (95% CI 127.9% to 150.4%), Trendelenburg 132%+/-24% (95% CI 113.3% to 142.9%).

CONCLUSION

All 3 maneuvers distended the external jugular, internal jugular, and common femoral veins compared to baseline. There was no important difference in magnitude of cross-sectional area between any of the 3 maneuvers when compared with one another. Humming shares many physiologic similarities to Valsalva's maneuver and may be more familiar and easier to perform during procedures such as ultrasonographically guided central venous catheter placement and insertion of external jugular intravenous catheters.