OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Open surgery prevails in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to scarcity of laparoscopic equipment and poor access to training. LaparosopiX is a box trainer system designed for teaching hospitals in LMICs; it includes an open-source laser print design and an app to allow surgical trainees to receive feedback from laparoscopic experts. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This study aims to assess the usability of Laparoscopix for surgical trainees and mentors at five large teaching hospitals in Kenya. Surgical trainees and mentors who participate in this study will be observed while setting up and using the app to identify natural pain-points. A post-session survey will be conducted to assess immediate perceptions of the platform including ease of navigation and intuitive design. Over three months, aggregate data regarding platform usage at these hospital sites will be collected and analyzed to assess user retention rates, usage and traffic patterns, and skill progression over time. Surveys will be sent out to assess attitudes towards the platform and to elucidate any aspects of the system we can improve. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We hope to find overall positive impressions towards the LaparoscopiX system during this study. We expect there to be some pain-points that arise during navigation of the app, but we expect no large changes to the application architecture required. We anticipate an immediate increase and eventual plateau of users recruited. We hope to see that surgical trainees are advancing through the app while gaining practice and confidence. We will gather insightful data on which aspects of the app were helpful for trainees, and which can be improved. We also hope to learn what factors may play into trainee and mentor retention in the system. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Through this study, we hope to elucidate ways in which we can improve the LaparoscopiX platform, identify which features to prioritize, and determine the direction of future app development. We believe and hope that LaparoscopiX can expand access to laparoscopic surgical mentorship to improve surgical outcomes and health equity worldwide.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Nurses are leaving the profession at an alarming rate due to increased workload and burnout.#_msocom_1 Computational models that are reliable and reproducible are needed to quantitatively examine nursing workload and estimate potential effect of interventions. This project developed a logical data model to represent nursing EHR interactions. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: With nursing EHR interactions as a starting point, we expand upon literature that examined the EHR workload of physicians. We conducted an exploratory analysis of nursing EHR audit log data at a large academic medical center, and explored components of nursing workload that can be extracted from other health system data. Using concepts derived from the studying temporal biomedical data patterns, we formulated a data structure that describes nurse EHR interactions, nurse intrinsic and situational characteristics, and nurse outcomes of interest in a scalable and extensible manner. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Temporal machine learning models are grounded in the concept of vectors. We developed a logical data model that describes tasks performed by nurses (NTask), nurse types (NType), and nursing outcomes (NOutcome). For each nurse (k), we define a function <NTask (k, i)>, i=1 to N as a vector of dimension N, where N is the number of time periods in the study. The i component corresponds to the activity that the nurse is doing. The model will allow the quantitative classification of activity patterns for any finite number of nurses for an arbitrary set of tasks and for time at any specified resolution. The expected outcome is a set of vectors that can then be utilized to quantitatively model nurse activity trajectories and other patterns of nurse EHR interactions. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: By instantiating the logical data model, we will demonstrate how nurse EHR interactions can be studied using temporal unsupervised learning and state-of-the-art artificial intelligence methods. We plan to simulate the potential impact of workload interventions and predict risk for nurse burnout.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The overarching goal of the Mayo Clinic in Florida Clinical Research New Hire Training Programis to create a standardized work force development model that ensures all new research coordinators receive the same high-quality training and can perform their role. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Mayo Clinic implemented a comprehensive six-week in-class training program to teach research coordinators how to conduct clinical research studies and trials. A multi-disciplinary team with expertise in education, operations, study coordination, and human resources assisted in development. The program approaches education through the lens of application. Staff start on designated hire dates and have an assigned trainer, allowing them to complete the program in cohorts and build connections with one another. During the program, they complete assignments, checkpoints, and shadow within their units. At the conclusion, they take a one-on-one assessment with a trainer to confirm they can work independently. If a learner cannot pass, the trainer and supervisor implement a learning plan targeting their needs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The program has had 110 graduates since its April 2022 inception, with a steady improvement in learner satisfaction scores. Based on the question “My site’s new hire education program was good,” with 5 being strongly agree and 1 being strongly disagree, learners rate the current iteration as 4.38. The program has a positive correlation with retention and favorable quality reviews. 23.8% of new coordinators hired from April of 2021 to March of 2022 left within the first year. From April 2022 to September 2023, the first-year turnover rate fell to 14.55%. Additionally, 43% of quality reviews completed for graduates required no follow-up, compared to 35% of staff hired before implementation of the program. Only 5% of reviews for graduates required urgent follow-up, compared to 15% of those completed for existing staff. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Research Coordinators who complete the training program report a higher confidence level and demonstrate they can perform their role. The effects of our program have been so pronounced that the curriculum is being translated within Clinical Research across all of Mayo Clinic and our Florida site is researching ways to market it outside of Mayo Clinic.

Structured processes to improve the quality and impact of clinical and translational research are a required element of the Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards (CTSA) program and are central to awardees’ strategic management efforts. Quality improvement is often assumed to be an ordinary consequence of evaluation programs, in which standardized metrics are tabulated and reported externally. Yet evaluation programs may not actually be very effective at driving quality improvement: required metrics may lack direct relevance; they lack incentive to improve on areas of relative strength; and the validity of inter-site comparability may be limited. In this article, we describe how we convened leaders at our CTSA hub in an iterative planning process to improve the quality of our CTSA program by intentionally focusing on how data collection activities can primarily advance continuous quality improvement (CQI) rather than strictly serve as evaluative tools. We describe our CQI process, which consists of three key components: (1) Logic models outlining goals and associated mechanisms; (2) relevant metrics to evaluate performance improvement opportunities; and (3) an interconnected and collaborative CQI framework that defines actions and timelines to enhance performance.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Clinical Research Professionals (CRP) at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) identified and addressed gaps in a static on boarding material by transforming it into an interactive, centralized, and customizable REDCap checklist to better meet researcher needs across the institution. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CRP On boarding Checklist is a tool designed to assist clinical researchers in their onboarding process at CCHMC. This tool helps CRPs determine the required/recommended trainings available to assist with skill-building and establishing job role competency. CRP supervisorsand subject matter experts were included incontent revisions, format, and transition to a RED Capsurvey. The new checklist is interactive, targets training requirements by job function, and clearly labels mandatory training. A companion document allows new CRPs to create and track their own individualized training plan. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The revised CRP On boarding Checklist was launched in April 2022 and announced via email communication. Alive demonstration was presented to all CRPs during the May 2022 CRP Monthly Meeting. The checklist and companion document are linked to the internal CRP website, which is accessible institutionally. Sincelaunch, almost 100 new and internally transferring CRPs have utilized the online tool to guide their training needs. The checklist is intended to reflect real-time changes in educational offerings. In addition to feedback and change requests from the CRP community, the checklist is updated as necessary and routinely reviewed on a biannual basisby the CRP Education Committee. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The creation and maintenance of the CRP Onboarding Checklist is a modern and accessible way for CRPs and supervisors to explore role-applicable training and take active roles in the on boarding process. The RED Capformat allows easy sharing and adoptability to other institutions via data dictionary.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Research in Action is an on-demand, interactive curriculum designed to increase the ability of clinicians to advance the Academic Learning Health System (aLHS). The 7-module course provides clinicians with the knowledge and skills to lead rigorous quality improvement (QI) projects, translating research evidence into practice. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We engaged nurses, physicians, and advanced practice providers (APPs) working in the health system to participate in focus group and advise us in the creation of the curriculum. We conducted focus groups with these stakeholders on the proposed learning objectives, course content, and mode of delivery (in person, virtual, hybrid). Informed by the focus groups, the course was designed for hybrid format so participants could either (1) access the modules on-demand, or (2) learners could participate in a facilitator moderated course where the modules served as the curriculum to guide development of a QI project. The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice was the framework for curriculum development. Upon completion of the modules, stakeholders reviewed each module and provided feedback for improvement. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Research in Action is a 7-module course, with modules addressing the following topics: (1) Introduction to Quality Improvement, (2) Identify the Problem and Write a Purpose Statement, (3) Form a Team, (4) Appraise and Synthesize the Literature, (5) Design and Pilot the Project, (6) Integrate and Sustain Practice Change, (7) Disseminate the Results. The curriculum is being piloted with multiple clinician groups in the health system. In the next phase of development, a facilitator guide will be created to guide a cohort of clinicians to apply knowledge through discussion sessions and completion of a QI project in the healthcare setting. We anticipate scaling the program for spread to diverse clinician groups in the health system. Pre- and post-implementation data are being collected from current pilot sites. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The aLHS is an essential means for improving healthcare delivery. Research in Action, a hybrid training curriculum, engages frontline clinicians in creating and leading QI projects that implement research evidence into practice to solve problems commonly encountered in the healthcare setting; thus, supporting the advancement of the aLHS.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The objective is to describe the process for developing two measurement tools to measure confidence (self-efficacy) of the anti-racist advocate in an academic setting. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We proposed five spheres encountered by the academic trainees: Academic/Research, Clinical, Policy, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal. We evaluated a book, by Shereen Daniels, used in anti-racism literature: The Anti-Racist Organization - Dismantling Systemic Racism in the Workplace. Using the proposed metric of RACE framework, Recognize the problem, Analyze the impact, Commit to action, Empower for change, we sought to establish readiness on the spectrum of anti-racism advocacy. We developed a list of anti-racism and anti-bias advocacy skills based on: 1) Informational interviews with anti-racism and anti-bias experts, 2) Scoping literature review and 3) Academic trainees’ and faculty lived experience. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The first assessment, “5-Spheres”, consists of 10 items that perform, 1) Analysis of readiness on the spectrum of anti-racism advocacy using RACE framework (Figure 1 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A3nMArEn7ZSxZSuSgDkYl_row-VOhOXf/view?usp=drive_link]), 2) Assessment of workplace environment. The second assessment, “Skills”, consists of 25 items (Figure 2 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GTdfSgn0-mPu-flSUVSN-vIKTxBCkFW3/view?usp=drive_link]) that perform assessment of confidence of specific skills within each of the five spheres using the following scale: 1 – Not confident at all, 2 – Lacking some confidence, 3 – Somewhat confident, 4 – Completely confident DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This proposed measurement tool can extend to anti-bias as well as anti-racism. Potential uses of the self-assessment includes: 1) Measurement and 2) Gap-spotting.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Optimize an Individual Retention Conversation (IRC) toolkit aimed at enhancing trust amongst CRPs and leadership via a 2-phase project wherein 9 academic medical centers (AMCs) with significant CRP workforces developed and assessed a 16 question IRC guide and accompanying manager/leader instructional guide. #_msoanchor_1 METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Significant interest in adapting the Stay Interview concept for the CRP workforce led to a 2-phase pilot to optimize the re-envisioned IRC toolkit. Representatives from nine AMCs and research sites volunteered to navigate their respective institutional IRB processes to initiate the assessment. Additional sites, such as Frontiers Clinical and Translational Institute (Frontiers) launched variations of the IRCs outside of the structured QI project to meet the needs of their institutional environments and reported feedback to the larger group. Feedback on both the standardized IRC, as well as Frontiers’ tailored version, will be presented. This will serve as an entryway into Phase 2, a multi-institutional mixed methods evaluation project open to all AMC members of ACTS and the CRPT SIG. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: To date, 7 institutions have initiated IRCs with test groups at their institutions. Each institution had unique requirements, but all IRBs deemed Phase 1 to be exempt/not human research. Preliminary data suggest not only that the IRC process is valuable to both employee and their manager/unit leadership, but also that the simple act of conducting IRCs was found to be unique and meaningful to employees. For example, in their tailored IRC process, Frontiers found that the 90% of their team found the process to be beneficial (n=9). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: By acknowledging issues, understanding motivations, and increasing engagement, IRCs foster positive change, allowing team leaders to take immediate action on important issues. By doing so, retention and engagement of team members, and the CRP workforce as a whole, is likely to grow and strengthen, as supported by results from our initial test pilots.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We created an online, competency-based training program for Healthcare Delivery Science (HDS) that incorporates a wide range of disciplines and best educational practices. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: In collaboration with a curriculum design expert and thirteen content experts from multiple schools and departments, we reviewed and adapted a published set of competencies for learning health system researchers. We followed educational best practices to collaboratively create learning objectives, aligned content with the objectives, and created quiz questions that addressed the objectives. After recording the coursework and building the program in a learning management system, we tested, evaluated, and revised the courses. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The systematic approach resulted in a novel set of eight online courses: Introduction to Healthcare Delivery Science, Research Methods, Dissemination & Implementation Science, Behavioral Economics, Leadership & Management, Quality Improvement, Systems Engineering, and Multi-Stakeholder Engagement. The courses are applicable to learners from diverse fields, including medicine, public health, pharmacy, engineering, health system administration, and translational science. Students can earn digital badges for individual courses and a certificate of completion for the entire set of courses. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Compared to previously available offerings, the new training program offers a more comprehensive view of this important field. Next, we plan to develop additional courses and create a Masters program that includes synchronous learning and a complementary experiential component for hands-on application of HDS principles.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Faculty pursuing their first independent research grants often struggle to express their ideas in a concise, compelling way. Thus, we developed the “Research and Scholarship Storytelling Bootcamp” to equip these faculty with narrative development skills applicable across disciplines and mechanisms. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Early-career researchers who were preparing either their first NIH R-series application or an NSF CAREER award proposal were invited to participate. Enrollment was limited to 20 participants. Those accepted learned the “And-But-Therefore” narrative framework by reading a short book and attending 4 synchronous lectures. Between sessions, they applied the framework by drafting abstracts and Specific Aims/Project Summary documents and reviewing their fellow participants’ work. We assessed participants' comfort with storytelling, perceptions of preparedness, and confidence regarding funding chances, before and after the program using a visual analog scale (max 100 points) and calculated Cohen’s d to evaluate the effect size of any changes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Thirty people applied for 20 slots, indicating strong demand. Eleven NIH applicants and 9 NSF applicants enrolled. Before the program, participants rated their comfort with storytelling at 45 ± 25, their preparedness at 39 ± 24, and their funding confidence at 39 ± 26. Nine total participants completed all sessions, assignments, and surveys. Completion rates were comparable for NIH- and NSF-targeting participants. After the program, completing participants reported increases in their comfort with storytelling (68 ± 14 post vs 32 ± 20 pre, d = 1.46), perceived preparedness (64 ± 20 post vs 48 ± 26 pre, d=0.58), and confidence in funding chances (56 ± 19 post vs 40 ± 27 pre, d=0.75). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This program was the first of its kind for multidisciplinary early-career faculty at our institution. The program successfully achieved its objectives for those who completed all activities. Future analysis of survey comments and proposal success rates will reveal barriers to full program engagement and opportunities for further training.

Conducting clinical trials is often complex and involves many individuals from a variety of services, each with a specific role in ensuring its successful implementation. Although an experienced clinical trialist may anticipate many of the challenges, others may be unexpected and detrimental to the successful completion of a study. We describe the use of simulation during preparation for initiation of a randomized clinical trial of a new preparation of antiseizure medication in neonates with seizures. The process of identification of stakeholders and roles, scenario development, and identification of challenges are described. Lessons learned included the potential benefits of simulation exercises, simulation challenges, and challenges associated with the study itself. We posit that going through the steps of a study, rather than merely reading them from a manual of procedures, will help identify potential barriers, complexities, and contingencies that are not readily apparent and may result in fewer protocol deviations and violations.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Learn how the National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP) adapted the Center for Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research (CIMER) NIH-funded evidenced-based mentor training curriculum for research development professionals and how the curriculum will be further adapted for clinical research professionals. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: NORDP pioneered the adaptation of the CIMER curriculum for professional research staff. In addition to revamping the case studies and ensuring the curriculum was appropriately staff-centric, the NORDP team developed best practices for adapting the curriculum. This approach included four phases: (1) developing expertise in mentor training, (2) adapting curriculum for staff, (3) creating role-specific case studies, and (4) integrating mentor training with institutional or professional association-based mentoring programs. In collaboration with CIMER and units at the University of Minnesota (UMN), the mentor training model for research development will be further adapted for clinical research staff, i.e. coordinators, regulators, facilitators. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This poster will discuss the preliminary work of adapting the curriculum for clinical research professionals by the UMN’s Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health and Clinical and Translational Science Institute’s Translational Workforce Development team. The anticipated short to mid-term outcomes of this work include: (1) improved research professionals mentoring knowledge and skills, (2) diversity addressed across research roles, (3) reduced staff turnover and associated costs, (4) increased staff job satisfaction and moral, and (5) research culture changed to value mentoring excellence across the academic enterprise. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Research mentoring has traditionally been focused on faculty and trainees. Given the unique skill sets and increasing complexity of research staff roles, mentoring can increase job satisfaction and reduce the overall costs related to turnover, i.e. research productivity, loss of institutional knowledge, hiring costs, etc.