What is PSNet Continuing Education?
PSNet Continuing Education offerings include WebM&M Spotlight Cases and Commentaries, which are certified for Continuing Medical Education/ Continuing Education Units (CME/CEU) and Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit through the University of California, Davis (UCD) Health Office of Continuing Medical Education.
Each WebM&M Spotlight Case and Commentary is certified for the AMA PRA Category 1™ and Maintenance of Certification (MOC) through the American Board of Internal Medicine by the Office of Continuing Medical Education (OCME) at UCD, Health.
Learn more about how to earn credit from UCD
UCD's CME Security and Privacy
How does it work?
Earn CME or MOC credit and trainee certification by successfully completing quizzes based on Cases & Commentaries.
- Individuals have two attempts at each quiz to achieve a passing score of 80% or higher in order to earn credit.
- If you fail a quiz twice, the quiz will become unavailable, but the Spotlight case will be available as read-only.
- Spotlight Cases older than three years continue to be available as read-only, but their associated quizzes have been disabled.
New WebM&M Spotlight Cases
A 72-year-old man was diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia and ileus, and admitted to a specialized COVID care unit. A nasogastric tube (NGT) was placed, supplemental oxygen was provided, and oral feedings were... Read More
These cases describe the rare but dangerous complication of hematoma following neck surgery. The first case involves a patient with a history of spinal stenosis who was admitted for elective cervical discectomy and... Read More
A 38-year-old man with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on chronic hemodialysis was admitted for nonhealing, infected lower leg wounds and underwent a below-knee... Read More
This case describes a man in his 70s with a history of multiple myeloma and multiple healthcare encounters for diarrhea in the previous five years, which had always been attributed to viral or unknown causes, without any... Read More
All WebM&M Spotlight Cases (47)
- Communication Improvement(38)
- Quality Improvement Strategies(14)
- Education and Training(11)
- Technologic Approaches(11)
- Human Factors Engineering(7)
- Culture of Safety(6)
- Logistical Approaches(6)
- Error Reporting and Analysis(5)
- Legal and Policy Approaches(3)
- Specialization of Care(3)
- Computerized Decision Support(2)
- Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE)(1)
- Clear filter(88)
- Discontinuities, Gaps, and Hand-Off Problems(47)
- Diagnostic Errors(13)
- Medication Safety(8)
- Interruptions and distractions(5)
- Medical Complications(4)
- Psychological and Social Complications(3)
- Alert fatigue(2)
- Surgical Complications(2)
- Fatigue and Sleep Deprivation(1)
- Identification Errors(1)
- Nonsurgical Procedural Complications(1)
- Transitions of Care(1)
This Spotlight Case describes an older man incidentally diagnosed with prostate cancer, with metastases to the bone. He was seen in clinic one month after that discharge, without family present, and scheduled for outpatient biopsy. He showed up to the biopsy without adequate preparation and so it was rescheduled. He did not show up to the following four oncology appointments. Over the course of the following year, the patient’s son and daughter were contacted at various points to re-establish care, but he continued to miss scheduled appointments and treatments. During a hospital admission, a palliative care team determined that the patient did not have capacity to make complex medical decisions. He was discharged to a skilled nursing facility, and then to a board and care when he failed to improve. He missed two more oncology appointments before being admitted with cancer-related pain. Based on the patient’s poor functional status, he was not considered a candidate for additional therapy. After a discussion of goals of care with the patient and daughter, he was enrolled in hospice. The commentary outlines key elements for assessing patient capacity, the importance of understanding the patient’s psychosocial history, and strategies to strengthen psychosocial training for medical and nursing trainees.
A 52-year-old man complaining of intermittent left shoulder pain for several years was diagnosed with a rotator cuff injury and underwent left shoulder surgery. The patient received a routine follow-up X-ray four months later. The radiologist interpreted the film as normal but noted a soft tissue density in the chest and advised a follow-up chest X-ray for further evaluation. Although the radiologist’s report was sent to the orthopedic surgeon’s office, the surgeon independently read and interpreted the same images and did not note the soft tissue density or order any follow-up studies. Several months later, the patient’s primary care provider ordered further evaluation and lung cancer was diagnosed. The commentary discusses how miscommunication contributes to delays in diagnosis and treatment and strategies to facilitate effective communication between radiologists and referring clinicians.
A 65-year-old man with metastatic cancer and past medical history of schizophrenia, developmental delay, and COPD was admitted to the hospital with a spinal fracture. He experienced postoperative complications and continued to require intermittent oxygen and BIPAP in the intensive care unit (ICU) to maintain oxygenation. Upon consultation with the palliative care team about goals of care, the patient with telephonic support of his long time caregiver, expressed his wish to go home and the palliative care team, discharge planner, and social services coordinated plans for transfer home. Although no timeline for the transfer had been established, the patient’s code status was changed to “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNR) with a plan for him to remain in the ICU for a few days to stabilize. Unfortunately, the patient was transferred out of the ICU after the palliative care team left for the weekend and his respiratory status deteriorated. The patient died in the hospital later that week; he was never able to go home as he had wished. The associated commentary describes how care inconsistent with patient goals and wishes is a form of preventable harm, discusses the need for clear communication between care team, and the importance of providers and healthcare team members serving as advocates for their vulnerable patients.