Sam Brondfield

Purpose During their clinical years, medical students rotate in diverse environments, each with unique factors motivating or demotivating learning. Student motivation to learn in specialised clinical settings has not been robustly described. One framework to understand motivation to learn is self‐determination theory (SDT), which posits that intrinsic motivation requires fulfilment of three innate psychological needs: competence, relatedness and autonomy. Referencing SDT, the authors aimed to understand factors influencing student motivation to learn in the specialised context of internal medicine (IM) subspecialty consult services, with the goal of optimising teaching and learning during these experiences. Method Focus groups were conducted with 12 fourth‐year medical students who had completed at least one inpatient IM subspecialty consult elective at the University of California, San Francisco, in 2020–2021. Students discussed factors that promoted and hindered their learning and motivation. The authors performed abductive thematic analysis using SDT as a sensitising framework. Results Three themes were identified and provided insight into how student motivation to learn can be supported: teaching at the appropriate level; integration into the team and workflow; and self‐directed learning and career exploration. These themes were overlaid onto the needs of SDT, demonstrating that, in specialised clinical contexts, fulfilment of the needs is interconnected. Conclusion This study provided insight into how students' innate needs can be satisfied in the learning environment of IM subspecialty consult electives, thereby promoting students' intrinsic motivation. Based on insights from the study, the authors offer recommendations for how educators can optimise student motivation to learn.

Background As immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) are increasingly approved for cancer treatment, hospitalizations related to severe immune-related adverse events (irAE) will increase. Here, we identify patients hospitalized due to irAEs and describe survival outcomes across irAE, CPI, and cancer type. Methods We identified patients hospitalized at our institution from January 2012 to December 2020 due to irAEs. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank tests. Results Of 3137 patients treated with CPIs, 114 (3.6%) were hospitalized for irAEs, resulting in 124 hospitalizations. Gastrointestinal (GI)/hepatic, endocrine, and pulmonary irAEs were the most common causes of irAE-related hospitalization. After CPI initiation, the average time to hospitalization was 141 days. Median survival from hospital admission was 980 days. Patients hospitalized due to GI/hepatic and endocrine irAEs had longer median survival than patients with pulmonary irAEs (795 and 949 days vs. 83 days [P < .001]). Patients with melanoma and renal cell carcinoma had longer median survival than patients with lung cancer (2792 days and not reached vs. 159 days [P < .001]). There was longer median survival in the combination group compared to the PD-(L)1 group (1471 vs. 529 days [P = .04]). Conclusions As CPI use increases, irAE-related hospitalizations will as well. These findings suggest that among patients hospitalized for irAEs, survival differs by irAE and cancer type, with worse survival for patients with irAE pneumonitis or lung cancer. This real-world data contributes to research pertaining to hospitalization due to severe irAEs, which may inform patient counseling and treatment decision-making.