Dataset Information

COVID-19 pandemic and the implications for orthopaedic and neurosurgery residents and fellows on spine rotations

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 global pandemic has caused unprecedented levels of strain on the United States healthcare and its workforce. Orthopaedic and neurosurgery residents and fellows, as part of this workforce have also experienced some of the uncertainty and stress caused by this pandemic. Concerns exist regarding the effects of the pandemic on spine surgery education due to the cancellation of all elective surgeries.

Current Context

We explore how this pandemic is affecting orthopaedic and neurosurgery residents and fellows and their spine surgery education and experience. We also examined measures taken by the residency and fellowship programs to protect their residents and fellows, and measures taken by regulatory agencies like the ACGME and the ABOS to give programs some flexibility during these difficult times.

Conclusion

Orthopaedic and neurosurgery residents and fellows are often on the front lines of patient care. Programs have to ensure adequate resources and training, supervision, and work hour requirements are met. Residents and fellows need to be ready to assist with management of COVID-19 patients if necessary. Residency programs and spine surgery fellowships need to use objective metrics to assess the impact of the pandemic on the spine surgery education of their residents and fellows in order to address any potential area of weakness caused by the decreased exposure to spine surgery.

SUBMITTER: Ramos O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7229966 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo examine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical trainees (residents and fellows) working at Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) in New York City (NYC), the initial epicenter of the United States pandemic.MethodThe authors administered a survey to 991 trainees in frontline specialties working at MSH in NYC between April and May 2020. The instrument assessed symptoms of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, COVID-19-related posttraumatic stress disorder, and burnout. Psychiatric screens were aggregated into 1 composite measure, and meeting criteria on any of the 3 scales was considered a positive screen for psychiatric symptoms. The survey also assessed COVID-19-related exposures, worries, coping strategies, and desired interventions. Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with psychiatric symptoms and burnout.ResultsOf the 560 respondents (56.6% response rate), 29.7% screened positive for psychiatric symptoms and 35.8% screened positive for burnout. History of a mental illness, COVID-19-related duties and personal/career worries, and coping by substance use were associated with increased likelihood of screening positive for psychiatric symptoms. Positive emotion-focused coping and feeling valued by supervisors were associated with decreased likelihood. Internal medicine and surgical specialties, a history of mental illness, increased duty hours, duty-related worries, personal/career worries, coping via self-blame and venting, and coping via substance use were associated with higher odds of burnout. Feeling valued by supervisors was associated with decreased burnout odds. The most common crisis-related needs included access to personal protective equipment, food provisions, and financial support.ConclusionsPsychological distress and burnout affected approximately one-third of trainees sampled during the height of the pandemic in NYC. As the pandemic surged beyond NYC, these findings suggest that interventions should include addressing basic needs, promoting leadership affirmation, moderating duty hours, supporting trainees financially, and enhancing mental health support.

Project description:Introduction: This study compares rates of depression, suicidal ideation, and burnout among resident/fellow and attending physicians in orthopaedic surgery to other specialties during height/end of the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at our institution. Main outcomes and measures included suicidal ideation, Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression (PHQ-9) scores for depression, and 2 single-item measures for emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. This study provides valuable information regarding orthopaedic surgeon mental health during world crises. Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey-based study of resident, fellow, and attending physicians from 26 specialties during and after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic at our institution from April 24, 2020 to May 15, 2020. The survey contained 22 items. This includes consent, demographics and general data, 2 single-item questions of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and the PHQ-9. Subjects were eligible if they were a resident/fellow or attending physician at our institution. Results: The response rate for the study was 16.31%. Across all specialties rates were 6.2% depression, 19.6% burnout, and 6.6% suicidal ideation. The results for orthopaedic surgeons are as follows: 0% tentative diagnosis of depression, 3.8% suicidal ideation, and 4% burnout. Anesthesiology had the highest rate of depression (14.3%). Internal medicine and other non-surgical specialties had the highest rate of suicidal ideation (10.2%). Orthopaedic surgeons were significantly more likely to achieve work-life balance and experience less burnout than anesthesiologists and pediatricians. Discussion: Depression, suicidal ideation, and burnout continue to affect physicians across all specialties. These issues are amplified in light of crisis. Job satisfaction and rigorous training may be protective factors that allow orthopaedic surgeons to adapt to novel clinical settings under stress when compared to anesthesiologists and pediatricians. Resilience training and stress management strategies should continue to be investigated to better prepare physicians for world crises.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been accompanied by significant reductions in patient volumes for non-COVID-19-related conditions ranging from acute coronary syndrome to ischemic strokes to acute trauma. However, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient volumes for a broad range of orthopedic conditions remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with changes in patient volumes of 35 emergent (e.g. dislocations, open fractures), urgent (e.g. fractures), and nonurgent orthopedic conditions (e.g. osteoarthritis, sprains).MethodsA retrospective interrupted time-series analysis of patient volumes was conducted for 35 orthopedic conditions based on ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Patient hospitalizations and new problem visits were aggregated across two institutions in New York state, including one urban tertiary care orthopedic hospital, one urban academic medical center, and all state outpatient facilities affiliated with the orthopedic institution. Patient volumes in the COVID-19 peak period (03/2020-05/2020) and COVID-19 recovery period (06/2020-10/2020) were compared against pre-COVID-19 vol (01/2018-02/2020).ResultsOverall, 169,047 cases were included in the analysis across 35 conditions with 3775 emergent cases, 6376 urgent cases, and 158,896 nonurgent cases. During the COVID-19 peak period, patient caseloads for 1 out of 7 emergent conditions (p = 0.02) and 26 out of 28 urgent and nonurgent conditions (p < 0.05) were significantly reduced compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. During the COVID-19 recovery period, patient volumes in 3 out of 13 emergent and urgent conditions (p < 0.03) and 11 out of 22 nonurgent conditions (p < 0.04) were decreased compared to pre-COVID-19 vol.ConclusionsThis study found that the pandemic was associated with considerable changes in patient patterns for non-COVID-19 orthopedic conditions. The long-term effects of patient volume reductions on both patient outcomes and orthopedic health systems remain to be seen.Level of evidenceCohort study; level of evidence IV.