OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: INTRODUCTION: Many of the innovative therapies used in regenerative medicine, such as additive manufacturing and stem cell engineering, rely on novel technologies and techniques for which standards for safety, efficacy, and quality have not been fully explored and established. As these therapies and technologies develop at a rapid pace, there is a need for the development of scientifically-based metrics to assess whether new treatments are effective and safe for clinical translation. Research and development of such standards is known as “regulatory science,” and is needed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support the creation of the evidence-based guidances and regulations that are used in review of product submissions. As outlined by the FDA’s description of their Centers for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSIs) and the Association for Clinical and Translational Science’s (ACTS) Regulatory Science Working Group, here is a need to train investigators and clinicians to conduct regulatory science research to support successful clinical translation of regenerative treatments. OBJECTIVE: To develop a course to expose scholars to regulatory science concepts, to empower them to apply these concepts to their personal areas of research, and to challenge them to engage in the dialogue surrounding regulatory science on a national level. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: METHODS: The “Introduction to Regulatory Science” course was developed jointly by the Yale-Mayo CERSI and the Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS) in 2017 as a didactic in-person survey course. The course objectives included exposing scholars to the ideas of regulatory science and affairs; reviewing the FDA’s Priority Areas for Advancing Regulatory Science; and determining what safety, quality, and efficacy concerns may need to be addressed when using new technologies, such as those used in regenerative medicine research. To meet these intended learning objectives, the course addressed one FDA Priority area each week, with a team of experts providing one-hour of lecture and discussion each class session. Regenerative medicine-related topics included a bioethics of stem cell therapy development, evaluation of additive manufacturing as an emerging technology, and the application of cGMPs to the manufacture of new therapies. Assignments and assessments included a quiz each week, which served as a knowledge check of that week’s lecture content, and a final paper analyzing regulatory concerns associated with a technology or product of the scholar’s choosing. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: RESULTS: The course was first delivered as an elective in 2017, with an enrollment of 8 scholars and 3 auditors. Scholars enrolled included 7 trainees and established investigators from Mayo Clinic Rochester and one from Arizona. Of the 8 scholars enrolled, 7 completed the post-course survey. Scholars strongly agreed that the “course objectives were met” (7/7) and that the “course was well worth the effort I put into it” (7/7). Five scholars stated that they learned “a lot” during the course; two said they learned “an incredible amount.” Scholars unanimously gave the course a grade of “A.” Qualitative feedback was positive, indicating that the team-taught and in-person course design choices were highlights for trainees. The course is currently in its second delivery (2018), with an enrollment of 16 scholars across Mayo Clinic Rochester, Arizona, and Florida. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: CONCLUSIONS: The developed course was successfully piloted and well-received. Scholars reported that they agreed that the course aims were achieved, and indicated that they would like to see additional coursework to continue to learn how to engage in regulatory science. Next steps include utilizing course feedback to iterate on the current course, expanding course delivery to include scholars at the Yale site of the Yale-Mayo CERSI, and the creation of a second course.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Patients on chronic opioids face gaps in transitions of care in the time following surgery, increasing the risk for adverse events, specifically high-risk opioid prescribing. The objective of this study is to determine how rates of high-risk prescribing differ between patients with public and private insurance. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A retrospective cohort study of 1,435 adult patients with preoperative chronic opioid use on Medicaid or commercial insurance who underwent surgery between November 2017 and February 2021. Patients were identified using the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) database, a collection of perioperative data from 70 hospitals across the state of Michigan. Data from the MSQC were merged with Michigan’s prescription drug monitoring program to provide additional information on pre- and postoperative opioid prescribing. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess high-risk prescribing by the presence of a preoperative usual prescriber and insurance type. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Overall, 22.7% of patients on private insurance and 23.6% of patients on Medicaid fulfilled criteria for new, postoperative high-risk prescribing. Among criteria for high-risk prescribing, multiple prescribers was the most significant contributor (private insurance: 17.4%, Medicaid: 18.9%). Patients on Medicaid insurance did not have increased odds of new postoperative high-risk prescribing (OR = 1.067, 95% CI: 0.813-1.402). While fewer patients on Medicaid had a preoperative usual prescriber (86.9% and 90.9% respectively, p = 0.015), there was no significant difference between the two insurance types in baseline rates of high-risk prescribing prior to surgery (private insurance: 43.4%, Medicaid: 46.0%, p = 0.352). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: While we do not observe disparities in high-risk prescribing between insurance types, rates of high-risk prescribing postoperatively are high across payer types. Further studies to determine the factors driving rates of high-risk opioid prescribing among patients with chronic opioid use are needed to identify areas for future intervention.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: Interventions designed to improve access to healthy food are needed as a mechanism to improve diet quality and ultimately prevent diet-related chronic diseases. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: For people living in food deserts, access to grocery stores is an important consideration toward improving diet quality. The Grocery Access Program (GAP) provided discounted Lyft rides to grocery stores for residents in Baltimore, MD. This study will assess how the GAP impacted access to different food retail stores and healthy food purchases. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A mixed methods sequential explanatory design will be used. We collected survey data at baseline and mid-pilot on primary grocery shopping store, frequency of purchasing fruits and vegetables, and frequency of using the discounted Lyft rides for 90 program enrollees. The Healthy Food Availability Index (HFAI), a validated, observation-based instrument, will be used to measure healthy food availability at participants’ primary grocery shopping stores; HFAI scores range from 0-27. We will also compare frequency of self-reported fruit and vegetable purchases before and after GAP participation. Quantitative data analysis using paired sample t-tests and chi square tests will be followed by in-depth interviews with GAP participants; thematic analysis will be used to analyze qualitative data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This research is in progress; survey data collection is complete and store-level HFAI data collection will begin soon. We hypothesize that GAP participants will have shopped at stores with higher HFAI scores than non-participants, and that participants will have purchased healthy foods more frequently than they did prior to GAP participation. If these hypotheses are not supported, our qualitative findings will elucidate potential reasons and mechanisms for improving the program. If our hypotheses are supported, it will provide evidence for the GAP as a convenient, low-cost intervention to improve healthy food access for people in low-income communities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Access to healthy foods is an important social determinant of health, and innovative strategies that can facilitate better dietary habits are needed in the area of food access research. Findings from this study could be used to scale up efforts that will foster better food access, healthier diets, and ultimately better health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: (1) To assess the prevalence of mental health symptomatology (depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, PTSD symptoms, and problematic alcohol use) and psychosocial risk factors for mental health disorders (low social support, immigration stress, acculturation, and marital/partner discord), and their association with immigration status, health care access and contextual risk factors in Spanish-speaking parents of young children (ages 0–5) who attended a well-child visit. (2) To explore acceptability of screening for and discussing parental distress in the pediatric primary care setting, and parental acceptability of a group well-visit format to address both psychosocial risk factors and mental health symptoms in this population. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Latino immigrant parents (n=100) of children ages 0–5 attending well-child visits at Johns Hopkins Bayview Children’s Medical Practice were surveyed between October 2015 and February 2016. The verbally administered survey included the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST), AUDIT-C, Primary Care Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PC-PTSD) Screener, California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS), Appraisal Support Subscale from Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL), Personal Health Questionnaire Depression Scale (PHQ-8), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-2). These questionnaires have been used in large regional or national surveys and most have been validated with US Latino populations. Positive screens were defined as PHQ-8>5 (mild depression or greater), GAD-2>3, AUDIT-C>3 for women and >4 for men, and PC-PTSD>3. Descriptive information and comparisons were obtained by χ2 and Student t-test. Study protocol will allow review of childrens’ pediatric records (n=100). From this sample, parents were separately recruited to participate in in-depth interviews (n=11 of 20 planned have been completed) further exploring both sources of parental distress, acceptability of screening for parental mental health symptoms in the primary care pediatric setting, and acceptability of a potential group-based well-visit model in the pediatric setting. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Survey participants were 93.0% women, and predominantly<35 years of age. The vast majority (94.0%) were undocumented, recently arrived (<15 years ago) and reported poor or very poor English proficiency (75.0%). Most (84.7%) reported living with a partner or spouse (84.7%), and 58% reported partner relationship strain. In all, 71% reported poor social support. The prevalence of “screen positive” mental health symptoms was highest for depression (55%) and PTSD (35%), followed by anxiety (29%) and alcohol risk use (25%). Having depression was significantly higher (68.4%) (p<0.02) in participants with less education (<6 grade). Partner relationship strain was associated with a higher prevalence of depressive symptoms (59.3%) (p<0.03). Immigration stress (feeling guilty for leaving family and friends) was also significantly associated with depressive symptoms (58.1%) and PTSD (43.5%) (p<0.03). More than half of the participants (60.0%) with depression were not covered by any health insurance and 56.3% of those with depression reported not having been seen by a health care provider in the past 12 months. A high prevalence of symptoms was found in those with poor appraised social support: alcohol risk use (76.0%), depression (69.1%), anxiety (69.0%), and PTSD (68.6%). Among participants, those aged<30 years old and those with more children reported poorer appraised social support. Data from child medical records (including BMI, presence of feeding problems, referrals for social work, or mental health services) has been extracted but not yet linked to parent survey or interview results. Preliminary review of In Depth Interviews suggests that the most common reported source of stress among participants was related to finances, followed by documentation/legal status difficulties, access to childcare, and limited English proficiency. Some mothers also mentioned interpersonal violence and lack of access to healthcare as stressors. All mothers expressed an interest in a pediatric primary care based parent focused the majority of which indicated that a group based intervention would be acceptable, some mothers indicated they preferred a one-to-one intervention if mental health were to be discussed. Mothers seem preferential to social worker-led interventions compared with pediatrician-led, but most mothers were indifferent. Finally, mothers expressed low support from the Latino community in Baltimore. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Results from this study suggest that this population of parents is experiencing a relatively high rate of mental health symptoms, low perceived social support, and limited access to their own source of care. This suggests that an intervention delivered within a primary care pediatric setting would have the potential to reach parents who might not otherwise interact with their own providers, and that there are an array of problems that could be targeted. Intervening with parents of young children has the potential to affect multiple child outcomes. A group intervention may target poor social support, though this format is not universally preferred. Next steps for this project include assessing the acceptability of and preference for various content components (ie, depression, parenting stress, legal issues) and linking parent data with child data (including developmental screening results, weight, feeding problems, and behavior problems).

Objectives/Goals: As translational science (TS) emerges as a field, there is a need for research organizations to understand how to develop capacity for and support the advancement of TS. To support such institutional and infrastructural change, this poster outlines a Translational Science Promotion and Research Capacity (T-SPARC) framework. Methods/Study Population: The T-SPARC framework was developed by members of the Duke University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) primarily from CTSI Pilots, Team Science, Evaluation, and Administration, all of whom had identified the need for building institutional capacity for TS at our institution. The group reviewed literature on TS to ensure grounding in current knowledge, drafted an initial TS logic model, and then determined the value of developing a framework addressing building TS institutional capacity. The group then identified other frameworks/models related to behavioral, organizational, and system change; examined scholarship addressing the building of research capacity in colleges and universities; and iterated on a TS-focused framework in multiple working sessions. Results/Anticipated Results: The resultant T-SPARC framework provides a foundation to 1) inform the development of interventions and programs advancing TS and 2) evaluate their effectiveness. It outlines: organizational levels for TS capacity building (large-scale systems, research institutions, teams, and individuals); intervention activities (policies and processes, funding, collaboration and partnership, and training); proximal outcomes (knowledge/attitudes, behaviors, resources/infrastructure, and connections); next-stage outcomes (e.g., interdisciplinary team processes, and research infrastructure); and ultimate goals (fewer translational impediments, improved public health, and health equity). It ingrates TS principles as foundational to, and outcomes of, capacity-building efforts. Discussion/Significance of Impact: T-SPARC, as a framework for building capacity in TS, provides added foundation for advancing the conceptualization and practice of TS. Ultimately, T-SPARC seeks to advance broader goals of reducing longstanding challenges in the translational research process and improving health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Innovations with positive health impact are a high priority for NCATS and CTSAs. Program design that uses the Causal Pathway approach incorporates performance indicators that assess impact. We applied Causal Pathway thinking to an ongoing national program to enhance the evaluation of program impact. We report Lessons Learned. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted a day-long onsite workshop to introduce the model to the project team, build capacity, and map the existing program elements to Logic Models representing program Specific Aims. A local Causal Pathway (CP) champion was identified. Alignment of the Logic Models with the CP approach (input→activities→ outputs→effects/impact) developed iteratively through biweekly, then monthly conferral among stakeholders. Key tasks included distinguishing among activities, outputs, and effects (impacts), and identification of performance indicators for each stage of the Causal Pathway. Visualization tools and an additional late stage half-day workshop were used to foster consensus. Implementation of the CP model tested the feasibility of collecting specific indicators and prompted model revisions. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Program leadership and team members (n = 30) participated in the kick-off workshop. Four Specific Aims were mapped to Logic Models. Multiple Causal Pathway (CP) diagrams, one for each project in the program, were developed and mapped to Aims. Alignment of CP threads to Aims and identification of performance indicators required iteration. CP threads converged onto common final Impacts, sometimes crossing to another Aim. Performance indicators for operations were readily accessible to team members, and less so for impacts. Assumptions about program effects were subjected to specific indicators. Over time, Leadership noticed more expression of CP thinking in daily activities. New projects developed during this period incorporated the CP approach. Teams were able to streamline and simplify Logic/CP models. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Through capacity-building and mentored exercises, an innovation team was able to infuse CP thinking into the evaluation of their ongoing program. The CP approach to design and evaluation maps progress and indicators across the life of a program from initial activities to its ultimate impact.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: With the knowledge that population health will not improve without including community voices in research, analysis of the UCI Institute for Clinical and Translational Science (ICTS) Community-Campus Research Incubator (CCRI) grants awarded since 2010 provides the foundation for understanding research partnerships impact on community health. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Over the past 13 years, the UCI ICTS CCRI program has funded 63 partnered research pilot or capacity-building projects, providing up to $30K annually to academic-community partnerships. Each year since 2010, between 3 and 7 projects were funded up to $5,000 annually for capacity-building activities and up to $10,000 annually for pilot research activities. Additionally, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a collaboration between the UCI ICTS and the local Healthcare Agency provided up to $20,000 to research partnership teams to study impact and interventions related to the pandemic, where 10 CCRI awards were given out. Evaluations of these research teams was completed at the end of the project, and at years 2 and 3 after the project ended. Analysis of the projects and partnerships aim to reveal the impact of these projects. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In 2023, we compiled all evaluation data collected from 2010 – 2023 from the CCRI partnership grants, including traditional metrics of publications, subsequent grant applications submitted & awarded, presentations given, and return on investment for ICTS granted funds. Less traditional metrics include number of students trained, new tools or databases created, knowledge disseminated, and advances in clinical care. Since 2020, Translational Science Benefit Model metrics have been collected on community, policy, economic, and clinical domains. Since 2015, data on each CCRI partnership has been collected at the start and end of each project, with questions about attributes of each partner, trust, community engagement principles, and anticipated/actual impact of each project. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Organizing outcomes from the data collected will provide deep understanding of important components, functioning, and types and reach of partnered health research. This understanding will inform future action of the CCRI program in terms of what can be accomplished with a given amount of funding, and the constitution of successful partnerships.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: New Beginnings is a 12-week community-based behavioral intervention for improving health, strength, and wellness through a holistic approach to coaching that supports lifestyle change. The program serves predominantly low-income, minority women. Given the substantial focus on exercise, including resistance training, we aimed to test whether pain at baseline is associated with program completion in a prospective cohort. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: At the entry of the New Beginnings program, women completed a survey that included a body map of sites at which they experienced pain for most days in the prior week. Using logistic regression, we independently tested the association between presence of pain, the total number of pain sites, and grouped location of pain with program completion, assessing the following a priori candidate confounders: age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, and income. We also tested for interaction of pain and age in influencing completion. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of participants, 185 of 247, completed the program. They had an average age of 44.2±11.7 years, weight of 244.5±115.4 pounds, and BMI of 41.3±18.2. Fifty-seven percent were African American and 3% were Hispanic. The majority reported preexisting pain (83%), with an average of 3.4±2.7 pain sites. Completers and non-completers did not differ by the total number of pain sites (p=0.2). Having preexisting pain compared to no pain [odds ratio (OR)=1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5–3.4] and to the number of pain sites (OR=1.0; 95% CI: 0.9–1.1) did not influence program completion after adjusting for the sole confounder, which was age. Likewise, we observed no association between limb/joint pain (OR=1.1; 95% CI: 0.6–2.1) or back pain (OR=0.9; 95% CI: 0.5–1.6) with program completion. The association of pain with completion was not modified by age. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: While pain is believed to be a barrier to improving fitness, preexisting pain may not be a strong predictor of completing a holistic lifestyle intervention with a substantial exercise component. Rather, women’s commitment to making a healthy lifestyle change may result in program completion irrespective of preexisting pain. Addressing and accommodating pain-related modifications to exercise interventions promise to be more effective than excluding those with pain from participation.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Minimal human investigations have assessed the effect of synbiotics (combination of pre- and probiotics) on anxiety symptoms, despite evidence from preclinical research. Our study aimed to determine the feasibility of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial utilizing synbiotics to reduce anxiety symptoms in older female breast cancer survivors. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We aimed to recruit older female breast cancer survivors experiencing anxiety symptoms to a 4-week randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. At commencement of the project, participants were eligible if they : 1) were 50-75 years old; 2) completed primary treatment for breast cancer; 3) were experiencing clinical anxiety symptoms 4) agreed to not change dietary supplements 5) were willing to comply with daily supplement regimen; and 6) were able to read and speak English. Use of anxiolytic or microbiome-altering medications, or changes to anxiety treatment within 4 weeks of enrollment were criteria for exclusion. Due to budgetary limitations, we were unable to recruit from state cancer registries, and instead recruited via newspaper advertisements and flyer distribution. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: One participant has successfully been recruited and completed the duration of the clinical trial, and two others have expressed interest but were deemed ineligible. Barriers in recruitment resulted in the following modifications to protocol: we expanded our eligibility criteria by removing the upper age limit (now 50+ years old) and now are recruiting females with a personal or family history of breast cancer. We partnered with the Spencer Cancer Center of East Alabama Health to aid in recruitment. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Integrative approaches to improved patient outcomes are needed, however, recruitment remains a paramount barrier for clinical trials. Addressing our issues for recruitment has opened eligibility to more individuals and allows us to continue our investigations, answer our research questions, and advance translational science.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS:. The study aims to understand the characteristics of junior investigators who are supported by the CTSI, their knowledge of CTSI services and resources, as well as the perceived effectiveness of CTSI research training and career development. The primary outcome is scientific productivity that enhances career development and promotion. The secondary outcome is to inform and improve CTSA research training and career development, not only for the UCLA CTSI hub but also for the CTSA Program nationally. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION:. The study sample includes post-doctoral and junior investigators who have received UCLA CTSI support between 2011 and 2017 (n=319). These junior investigators conduct research at our four partner sites (UCLA-Westwood, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, The Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science). The CTSI administered the LSAS and the Career Development module in 2018 using Qualtrics, a subscription software for collecting and analyzing survey data. In order to reduce the burden on the survey respondents, the survey team pre-populated their previously reported publication in the Qualtrics survey system. Qualtrics sends customized email invitations containing a link to start the LSAS survey and subsequently automated sequences of reminder messages for non-responders and partial completers. The survey team initiated telephone call-backs and engaged partner site leaders to achieve a high response rate. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS:. Preliminary results show a response rate of 83% (n=264). Respondents include K-to-R workshop participants (n=192), core voucher co-investigators (n=38), Training Program in Translational Science (TPTS) trainees (n=82), and junior investigators who participated in two or more of these activities (n=48). Trainee characteristics include degree, gender, and partner site location. The distribution of advanced degrees among the junior investigators include: PhD (29%), MD (55%), MD/PhD (13%), or other degree (3%). Forty-four percent (44%) respondents are male and 56% are female. Seventy-two percent (72%) have a primary appointment at UCLA-Westwood, while 28% have academic appointments at the partner institutions. Twenty-five percent (25%) received CTSI research training and 49% received CTSI career development support. Regarding scientific productivity, 58% reported having at least one peer-reviewed publication and 29% reported subsequent grant funding. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT:. We are in the process of identifying the predictors of scientific productivity and the characteristics of the junior investigators most significantly correlated with productivity using multiple logistic regression analysis. We will analyze qualitative responses to examine the facilitators and barriers to conducting research at the CTSI and explore ways to improve administrative and clinical research processes. The significance of this research is to inform research training and career development programs within our CTSA hub and the CTSA Program nationally.

This article describes lessons learned from the incorporation of language justice as an antiracism praxis for an academic Center addressing cardiometabolic inequities. Drawing from a thematic analysis of notes and discussions from the Center’s community engagement core, we present lessons learned from three examples of language justice: inclusion of bilingual team members, community mini-grants, and centering community in community-academic meetings. Facilitating strategies included preparing and reviewing materials in advance for interpretation/translation, live simultaneous interpretation for bilingual spaces, and in-language documents. Barriers included: time commitment and expenses, slow organizational shifts to collectively practice language justice, and institutional-level administrative hurdles beyond the community engagement core’s influence. Strengthening language justice means integrating language justice institutionally and into all research processes; dedicating time and processes to learn about and practice language justice; equitably funding language justice within research budgets; equitably engaging bilingual, bicultural staff and language justice practitioners; and creating processes for language justice in written and oral research and collaborative activities. Language justice is not optional and necessitates buy-in, leadership, and support of community engagement cores, Center leadership, university administrators, and funders. We discuss implications for systems and policy change to advance language justice in research to promote health equity.

Despite the disproportionate burden of Alzheimer’s disease in older adults of color, the scientific community continues to grapple with underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical research. Our Center of Excellence for Alzheimer’s Disease (CEAD) collaborated with a local community partner to conduct community engagement (CE) studios to effectively involve our community of diverse older adults in the early planning stages of a clinical trial. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, the in-person studio format was adapted to allow for virtual, real-time participation. Our objective is to describe the process and feasibility of conducting virtual CE studios in an older adult population. Ninety percent of participants were non-Hispanic Black community-dwelling woman aged 60 years and older. The overall background and proposed clinical trial design was presented to the participants who then made recommendations regarding potential recruitment strategies, the use of culturally relevant language to describe the study, and logistical recommendations to improve participation and retention among community members. Our CEAD successfully conducted virtual CE studios during the COVID-19 pandemic, by partnering with a community-based organization, to engage community stakeholders about clinical trial design. CEADs are in a unique position to implement CE studios to better support patient access to clinical trials.

Representation of under-represented minority (URM) faculty in the health sciences disciplines is persistently low relative to both national and student population demographics. Although some progress has been made through nationally funded pipeline development programs, demographic disparities in the various health sciences disciplines remain. As such the development of innovative interventions to help URM faculty and students overcome barriers to advancement remains a national priority. To date, the majority of pipeline development programs have focused on academic readiness, mentorship, and professional development. However, insights from the social sciences literature related to “extra-academic” (e.g., racism) barriers to URM persistence in higher education suggest the limitations of efforts exclusively focused on cognitively mediated endpoints. The purpose of this article is to synthesize findings from the social sciences literature that can inform the enhancement of URM pipeline development programs. Specifically, we highlight research related to the social, emotional, and contextual correlates of URM success in higher education including reducing social isolation, increasing engagement with research, bolstering persistence, enhancing mentoring models, and creating institutional change. Supporting URM’s success in the health sciences has implications for the development of a workforce with the capacity to understand and intervene on the drivers of health inequalities.

The purpose of this clinical improvement project was to instill a streamlined process of identifying social determinants of health (SDOH) in our clinic’s diverse patient population and provide resources that address these barriers to health and well-being. At each clinic visit, patients self-identified SDOH through an easy-to-use Social Assessment Form. Using an online database, Community Relay (CR), providers had access to location-based community resources. In addition to accomplishing the above-mentioned goals, we were left with a more well-rounded understanding of our patients. Unique struggles were identified and barriers to care were revealed, allowing for more patient-centered medical care.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The aim of this study was to determining how interruptions affect the triage process. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Prospective, observational study, where 118 triage interviews were observed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In total, 57% of triage interviews were interrupted. The most common interruption was by other nurses; however, 7% of the interruptions were by the triage nurse themselves. When an interruption occurred during the triage process, 67% of the time the triage nurse would stop the triage assessment and attend to the interrupter. In the interrupted interviews, 17% of the entire triage time was dedicated to addressing interruptions. Some interruptions (ie, additionally staff entering to conduct ECG) had a positive impact by expediting care during the triage process; where other interruptions delayed patient care. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Interruptions increased the total triage time and contributed to patient treatment delays, as well as led to errors in nursing assessment. Understanding the classifications of triage interruptions and the impact on patient outcomes will allow researchers to develop interventions to mitigate the impact of these interruptions.

Objectives/Goals: This study illuminates the efforts of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Hub to share stories of its aspirations, challenges, successes, opportunities, and impact when pursuing its complex goals, and how storytelling contributes to the narrative of the translational science work (via storytelling strategies, products, and benefits). Methods/Study Population: We utilized an environmental scan of a CTSA Hub (University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI)), including case study vignettes of its storytelling practices and products. We triangulated data from diverse data sources: grant applications, reports, and publications; public stories/news related to CTSI activities and impact; scientific publications; organizational/policy documents; and interviews with CTSI stakeholders featured in published sources. Results/Anticipated Results: TS storytelling uses and strategies include communicating the essence of research translation, promoting program utilization, engaging community, reporting to stakeholders, and evaluating for accountability, learning, and improvement. Storytelling challenges include complexity of translation; balancing the scientific rigor with an engaging narrative; identifying appropriate stories that resonate with diverse stakeholders and are at an appropriate level of maturity; and building capacity using storytelling. Facilitators include supportive infrastructure to integrate stories; leadership endorsement of storytelling as a valuable strategy; capable cross-functional teams of communicators, administrators, and researchers to facilitate the integration of data into storytelling. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The environmental scan provides evidence and lessons learned on leveraging storytelling as a useful tool for communicating CTS goals, actions, and findings, engaging stakeholders, building a narrative around scientific discoveries, evaluating and improving programs, and addressing health disparities in translational science.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: We aimed to explore the impact of leadership training on student’s abilities to work in interprofessional research teams successfully. The Translational Research Design and Interprofessional Skills Development Course (shortened, Interprofessional Research Design) brings together students from different disciplines (science & medicine) and education tracks (PhD, MD, MD/PhD training) in a seven-week course to learn interprofessional collaborative skills and leadership styles that support success in translational research environments, while undertaking a research grant writing project. Part of the course involves a two-day leadership training workshop (12 hours) with the goal of understanding leadership styles and how to develop productive working relationships with team members to help students work more effectively in high-performance, interprofessional team environments. The course incorporates personality testing to develop self-awareness, with various exercises meant to build empathy, as well as knowledge of project management and effective leadership. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Nine teams of 32 students (23 MD; 9 Ph.D.) who took part in the Interprofessional Research Design course in 2017 and 2018 were required to write a reflective essay at the end of the course. We used an inductive thematic analysis to evaluate the essays. Reflective essays were coded openly by one study member. Codes were rationalized; then codes were collaboratively developed into themes by the study authors. We identified issues of integration between student groups that functioned well together and those that did not. Reflective writing responses were grouped into overall positive experiences and negative experiences. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Seven of the nine teams collectively described their experiences positively. Themes related to positive team experience were “empathizing with group members”, “sophisticated communication” and “collaborative workflow/styles.” We found that those who had a positive experience utilized knowledge and skills learned during leadership training to better understand and communicate with their teammates leading to a more collaborative and dynamic workflow. These groups had higher degrees of communication both between their task assignments and within task completion periods. They also showed more awareness of others’ needs in work and communication styles. For those that had a negative experience, themes were related to “basic communication”, “poor integration” and “theory-practice gap of leadership training.” Those who struggled showed much less in- and between-task communication and showed an inability to address the personal needs of other members in communication and workflow (while still often being able to identify them). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: These findings demonstrate the usefulness of leadership training that facilitates student self-awareness and empathy, as well as effective communication, leading to collaborative high-functioning interprofessional teams. Further work incorporating conflict management and exercises to overcome the theory/practice gap of leadership and teamwork training are recommended.