Internal Medicine Societies

0 Society of Hospital Medicine

0 1996: NEJM article coined the term hospitalist

0 1997: 1st National Association of Inpatient Physicians meeting at UCSF

0 2003: NAIP changes name to SHM 0 2013: Journal of Hospital Medicine 0 15,000 members

0 American College of Physicians 0 Founded in 1915 0 1922: Annals of Internal Medicine 0 152,000 members!

0 Society of General Internal Medicine

0 1978: Founded as Society for Research and Education in Primary Care Internal Medicine from 130,000 RWJ grant and affiliation with ACP

0 1986: Journal of General Internal Medicine

0 1987: Separate from ACP and became SGIM

0 3,000 members

How Can I Get Involved?

0 Submit a:

0 Abstract/Poster

0 Papers to Journals

0 Workshop for conference

0 Local Chapter Events

0 SHM quarterly meetings

0 ACP meetings & webinars

0 Give a talk!

0 Request talks

0 Advisory Boards

0 Abstract Reviewer:

0 Local conference

0 Review 10-12 in 2 wk

0 National conference

0 Review 35-40 in 4-5 wk

0 Poster Judge:

0 Day of conference

0 Judge 5-10 posters/session

0 Workshop Reviewer:

0 Accept/feedback submitted workshops for conference

Meetings and Membership: ACP

0 SoCal meeting Sept 16-17 0 Marina del Rey Marriot 0 Abstract sub deadline: Aug 9 0 Abstract reviewers: now to

mid-August 0 Poster judges: Sept 16 0 Email: Bindu or Laxmi

lsuthar@dhs.lacounty.gov

0 National meeting April 19-21 0 New Orleans 0 Abstract submissions:

0 Med student: 10/2-11/15 0 Clinical vignettes: 10/2-11/22 0 Research 10/2-11/29

0 Abstract reviewers: mid-Nov to mid-Dec

0 Abstract guide: 0 First author = ACP member

0 Student, residents, fellow, early career (within 16 yr)

0 Word limit 450

0 Poster 44” x 44”

0 1 abstract/1st author

0 1st place sponsored to national

0 Membership: 0 Med students: free!

0 Residents/fellows: $119/yr

0 Attendings < 8yr: $260/yr

0 Attendings > 8yr: $535/yr

0 Non-physician: $109/yr

SGIM SHM 0 Cali-Hawaii meeting Jan 20

0 Stanford

0 Internists as leaders and innovator in education

0 Abstract submission: 8/8-10/6

0 Abstract review: late-Sept to mid-Oct

0 Poster judges: Jan 20

0 National meeting April 11-14

0 Denver, CO

0 Workshops, updates, interest groups deadline: 9/26

0 Abstract sub deadline: 1/4

0 Peer review workshops: 9/29-10/13

0 Membership:

0 Trainee: $120/yr

0 Attendings: $395/yr

0 Los Angeles chapter events

0 Hospitalist 101

0 Quarterly talks

0 Hospital Medicine April 8-11

0 Orlando, FL

0 Abstract deadline: Dec

0 Membership

0 Students: free

0 Resident: $100/yr

0 Physician: $385/yr

0 NP/PA: $215/yr

Abstract Categories 0 Clinical Vignettes: report a case that teaches a lesson!

0 Rare disease

0 Unusual or interesting presentation of a common condition

0 Unusual complication of a disease or management

0 Increases awareness of a condition, proper diagnostic strategies, more cost-effective approach to management

0 Research: clinical or lab research

0 Mechanisms of disease

0 Detailed review of a clinical problem

0 Innovation:

0 Quality improvement, safety projects

0 Innovation in healthcare or medical education

How to write an abstract: Clinical Vignettes

0 Introduction: 0 Describes context of the case, relevance and importance

0 Sometimes omitted

0 Case Description: 0 Describe in sequence history, PE, investigative studies,

patient’s progress and outcomes

0 Complete but concise, eliminate irrelevant details

0 Discussion: 0 Review why decisions were made

0 Extract lesson from the case

0 Cite literature (or absence of) which supports yoru findings

0 Small number of teaching points in clear and succinct language

How to write an abstract: Research

0 Introduction: outlines question addressed by research 0 Start with an interesting and dramatic statement 0 Concise review of what is know about the problem, how your research fills

knowledge gaps 0 Final sentence: purpose of study or hypothesis

0 Methods: 0 Research design, # patients enrolled, selection process 0 Description of intervention 0 Outcome variables, how they are measured 0 Statistical methods used for analysis

0 Results: 0 Description of included/excluded subjects 0 Frequency of outcome variables and comparisons (possible table) 0 Standard deviation, CI, statistical significance, power of study

0 Conclusion: 0 What is concluded and implications, generalizability to other populations 0 Weaknesses of the study

How to write an abstract: Additional tips

0 Title: 0 Short, descriptive, catchy! 0 Convince the reader: important, relevant, innovative 0 Write 6-10 key or descriptive words from your abstract, start stringing

them together

0 Authors: 0 First author: usually presenter, may need membership 0 List all author affiliations

0 Abbreviations: 0 No more than 3-4 0 Spell then out the first time (unless very common, CBC)

0 Revision: 0 Have an uninvolved mentor review the case- new eyes to point out

unclear areas or where details is needed 0 Read out-loud for grammar, awkward phrasing and word omissions

How to make a poster 0 Starting out

0 Look at guidelines, size requirements, should abstract be included

0 Visual Aids 0 Change text to pictures, figures, graphs whenever possible

0 Avoid clutter 0 Few main ideas 0 Emphasize points with lines, frames, boxes, arrows, bullets 0 Easy to follow the flow of information

0 Simple Font and Color 0 No more than 3 font sizes (Title, section titles, normal text) 0 Smallest font: read easily from 3-5 feet, usually 24 point 0 Simple colors add life and highlighting

0 Outside eyes to review before printing! 0 Day of

0 Proper carrying case for your poster, don’t check your poster on a flight 0 Arrive early, know when to stand by your poster, take down time 0 Bring business cards 0 Have a 3-5 minute oral presentation prepared for the judges

Judging Criteria: ACP Clinical Vignette

0 Significance: how significant or relevant are the poster’s conclusions in increasing understanding of a disease process of in improving the diagnosis or treatment of a disease state?

0 Presentation: How logical are the ideas presenting in this poster? How interesting is the manner of presentation? How clearly written and free of significant grammatical problems is its abstract?

0 Methods (if applicable): How suitable is the design for the stated objectives and how appropriate are any analysis techniques applied?

0 Visual impact: How effective is this poster visually? How valuable is each figure and graph in furthering viewer’s understanding of the subject?

0 Interview: How knowledgeable and conversant is the presenting author with the work presented in the poster?

Judging Criteria: SGIM Clinical Vignettes

0 Learning objectives: clear, pertinent and valuable

0 Teaching/discussion points: tied to objectives, supported by case

0 Methods: quality of EBM, use of analytic techniques

0 Significance: original and impactful, increased understanding of disease process, diagnosis or treatment

0 Poster: clear, well organized, good visual impact and flow, use of graphics/figures

0 Presentation: presenting author knowledgeable, conversant

Judging Criteria: ACP Research

0 Originality: how original is the concept presented in the poster? Or how original is the new approach to an old problem?

0 Significance: How significant are the poster’s conclusion in increasing understanding of a disease process or improving the diagnosis or treatment of a disease state?

0 Presentation: How logical are the ideas presented in the poster? How interested is the manner of presentation? How clearly written and free of significant grammatical problems is the abstract?

0 Methods: How suitable is the research design? How appropriate are the statistical techniques?

0 Visual impact: How effective is the poster visually? How valuable is each figure and graph in furthering the viewers understanding of the research subject?

0 Interview: How knowledgeable and conversant is the presenting author with the research presented in the poster?

Judging Criteria: SGIM Research

0 Background: clearly stated

0 Research objective(s): clearly stated, valuable

0 Methods: clear and rigorous, use of analytic techniques, quality of supporting evidence

0 Results: clearly displayed, figures and graphics, easy to interpret

0 Analysis: impact and significance of project identified, limitations acknowledged, next steps

0 Poster: clear, well organized, good visual impact and flow, use of graphics/figures

0 Presentation: presenting author knowledgeable and conversant

Judging Criteria: SGIM Innovations

0 Topic: Innovation is unique and important to IM (education/safety/patient care, etc)

0 Methods: clearly described, rigorous

0 Results: clearly delineated, figures and graphics

0 Analysis: impact and significance is clear, limitations identified, next steps recognized

0 Application: sufficient applicability and detail to allow replication at another institution

0 Poster: clear, well organized, good visual impact and flow, use of graphics/figures

0 Presentation: presenting author knowledgeable, conversant