Dataset Information

The perceived global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctors' medical and surgical training: An international survey.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant burden on healthcare systems causing disruption to the medical and surgical training of doctors globally.

Aims and objectives

This is the first international survey assessing the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the training of doctors of all grades and specialties.

Methods

An online global survey was disseminated using Survey Monkey^® between 4th August 2020 and 17th November 2020. A global network of collaborators facilitated participant recruitment. Data were collated anonymously with informed consent and analysed using univariate and adjusted multivariable analyses.

Results

Seven hundred and forty-three doctors of median age 27 (IQR: 25-30) were included with the majority (56.8%, n = 422) being male. Two-thirds of doctors were in a training post (66.5%, n = 494), 52.9% (n = 393) in a surgical specialty and 53.0% (n = 394) in low- and middle-income countries. Sixty-nine point two percent (n = 514) reported an overall perceived negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their training. A significant decline was noted amongst non-virtual teaching methods such as face-to-face lectures, tutorials, ward-based teaching, theatre sessions, conferences, simulation sessions and morbidity and mortality meetings (P ≤ .05). Low or middle-income country doctors' training was associated with perceived inadequate supervision while performing invasive procedures under general, local or regional anaesthetic. (P ≤ .05).

Conclusion

In addition to the detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare infrastructure, this international survey reports a widespread perceived overall negative impact on medical and surgical doctors' training globally. Ongoing adaptation and innovation will be required to enhance the approach to doctors' training and learning in order to ultimately improve patient care.

SUBMITTER: Laloo R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8237016 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background The Covid-19 pandemic led to significant changes and disruptions to medical education worldwide. We evaluated medical student perceived views on training, their experiences and changes to teaching methods during the pandemic. Methods An online survey of medical students was conducted in the Autumn of 2020. An international network of collaborators facilitated participant recruitment. Students were surveyed on their perceived overall impact of Covid-19 on their training and several exposure variables. Univariate analyses and adjusted multivariable analysis were performed to determine strengths in associations. Results A total of 1604 eligible participants from 45 countries took part in this survey and 56.3% (n = 860) of these were female. The median age was 21 (Inter Quartile Range:21–23). Nearly half (49.6%, n = 796) of medical students were in their clinical years. The majority (n = 1356, 84.5%) were residents of a low or middle income country. A total of 1305 (81.4%) participants reported that the Covid-19 pandemic had an overall negative impact on their training. On adjusted analysis, being 21 or younger, females, those reporting a decline in conventional lectures and ward based teaching were more likely to report an overall negative impact on their training (p ≤ 0.001). However, an increase in clinical responsibilities was associated with lower odds of participants reporting a negative impact on training (p < 0.001). The participant’s resident nation economy and stage of training were associated with some of the participant training experiences surveyed (p < 0.05). Conclusion An international cohort of medical students reported an overall significant negative impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their undergraduate training. The efficacy of novel virtual methods of teaching to supplement traditional teaching methods warrants further research. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-021-02983-3.

Project description:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in international communications and travel for academic global health programs (AGHPs) in both high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the importance of international travel and communication to AGHPs, the pandemic has likely had considerable impact on the education, research, and administrative components of these programs. To date, no substantive study has determined the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on AGHPs in HICs and LMICs. This study assessed the impacts and resultant adaptations of AGHPs to pandemic realities with the goal of sharing strategies and approaches. Methods: This study applied a mixed methods sequential explanatory design to survey AGHPs in HICs and LMICs about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on three program domains: education, research, and administration. First, we surveyed a range of AGHP stakeholders to capture quantitative data on the pandemic’s impact. Subsequently we conducted semi-structured interviews with select survey participants to gather qualitative data expanding on specific survey responses. Data from both phases were then compared and interpreted together to develop conclusions and suggest adaptive/innovative approaches for AGHPs. Results: AGHPs in both HICs and LMICs were significantly impacted by the pandemic in all three domains, though in different ways. While education initiatives managed to adapt by pivoting towards virtual learning, research programs were impacted more negatively by the disruptions in communication and international travel. The impact of the pandemic on scholarly output as well as on funding for education and research was quite variable, although LMIC programs were more negatively impacted. Administratively, AGHPs implemented a range of safety and risk mitigation strategies and showed a low risk tolerance for international travel. The pandemic posed many challenges but also revealed opportunities for AGHPs. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted AGHPs in HICs and LMICs in expected and unexpected ways. Programs noted some unanticipated reductions in education program funding, negative impacts on research programs, and reduced scholarly output. Many programs reported well-coordinated adaptive responses to the pandemic including, for instance, virtual (in place of in-person) collaboration in research. The pandemic will likely have lasting impacts with regard to education, research collaborations, and administration of programs.

Project description:BackgroundAt an individual level, physician resilience protects against burnout and against its known negative effects on individual physicians, patient safety, and quality of care. However, it remains uncertain whether physician resilience also correlates with maintaining a high level of healthcare quality during crises such as a pandemic. This study aimed to investigate whether higher resilience among physicians, who had received training in resilience-related competences in the past, would be associated with higher quality of care delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis study enrolled physicians working in family medicine, psychiatry, internal medicine, and other medical specialties, who had obtained at least one of three consecutive diplomas in psychosomatic medicine in the past. Participants completed a quantitative and qualitative anonymous online survey. Resilience was measured using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and healthcare quality was assessed through single-item quality indicators, including perceived quality of care, professional autonomy, adequate time for patient care, and job satisfaction.ResultsThe study included 229 physicians (70 males/159 females) with additional training in psychosomatic medicine, working in family medicine (42.5%), psychiatry (28.1%), internal medicine (7.0%), or other medical specialties (22.4%). Participants represented four intensity levels of training background (level 1 to level 4: 9.2%, 32.3%, 46.3%, and 12.2% of participants). Training background in psychosomatic medicine was positively associated with resilience (B = 0.08, SE = 0.04, p <.05). Resilience and training background independently predicted perceived quality of care, even after controlling for variables such as own health concerns, involvement in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, financial strain, percentage of working hours spent on patient care, age, and gender (resilience: B = 0.33, SE = 0.12, p <.01; training background: B = 0.17, SE = 0.07, p <.05). Both resilience and training background predicted job satisfaction (resilience: B = 0.42, SE = 0.12, p <.001; training background: B = 0.18, SE = 0.07, p <.05), while resilience alone predicted professional autonomy (B = 0.27, SE = 0.12, p <.05). In response to an open question about their resources, resilient physicians more frequently reported applying conscious resilient skills/emotion regulation (p <.05) and personal coping strategies (p <.01) compared to less resilient medical doctors.ConclusionPhysician resilience appears to play a significant role in the perceived quality of patient care, professional autonomy, and job satisfaction during healthcare crises.

Project description:The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had an enormous impact on healthcare delivery globally. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in Turkey to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare services in Turkey. A 35-item anonymized online survey was completed by HCPs (medical doctors, MD) who continued their clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey, regardless of their specialties or degrees. Overall, 209 HCPs participated in the study. Forty-two percent of the participants stated that their current workload intensity has been increased compared with the pre-pandemic era. More than half of the participants (54.6%) were using telemedicine services during their clinical practice, however, the effectiveness of telemedicine for first-time patients and follow-up patients was rated as low. The majority of participants (59.3%) reported that during the peak period of the pandemic, they encountered only a small variety of cases, other than COVID-19. Fifty-two percent of the participants agreed that they occasionally had patients who received misdiagnosis in the first admission due to the suspicion of a possible COVID-19 infection predominating the diagnostic process (eg., not excluding COVID-19 even though the PCR test is negative). For the distribution of possible late-diagnosed diseases, 25.8% of HCPs selected chest diseases, followed by infectious diseases, heart diseases, and cancer. In general, participants agreed that there was an increase in the negligence in the follow-up of various diseases and/or complication rates due to COVID-19 pandemic. Sixty percent of the HCPs agreed that HCPs are being much more rigorous to diagnose/treating COVID-19 than other important diseases. Fifty-seven percent of the participants stated that the diagnosis and follow-up of chronic diseases are affected, while 57.9% of the HCPs stated that some diseases that show similar signs and symptoms as COVID-19 are not diagnosed correctly during COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from this study emphasize that COVID-19 pandemic has significantly caused delayed diagnoses and interruption in the management of chronic diseases, and also increased the risk of missing out the diagnosis of non-COVID-19 diseases. The study genuinely aims to yield the floor to a permanent improvement in post-pandemic clinical management and it also shows the need for a focused approach in distinct areas of medical care. Policymaking is required to drive changes to better support HCPs in Turkey.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic decision support is commonplace in medical practice. However, its adoption at the point-of-care is dependent on a range of organisational, patient and clinician-related factors. In particular, level of clinical experience is an important driver of electronic decision support uptake. Our objective was to examine the way in which Australian doctors at different stages of medical training use a web-based oncology system (http://www.eviq.org.au).MethodsWe used logfiles to examine the characteristics of eviQ registrants (2009-2012) and patterns of eviQ use in 2012, according to level of medical training. We also used a web-based survey to evaluate the way doctors at different levels of medical training use the online system and to elicit perceptions of the system's utility in oncology care.ResultsOur study cohort comprised 2,549 eviQ registrants who were hospital-based medical doctors across all levels of training. 65% of the cohort used eviQ in 2012, with 25% of interns/residents, 61% of advanced oncology trainees and 47% of speciality-qualified oncologists accessing eviQ in the last 3 months of 2012. The cohort accounted for 445,492 webhits in 2012. On average, advanced trainees used eviQ up to five-times more than other doctors (42.6 webhits/month compared to 22.8 for specialty-qualified doctors and 7.4 webhits/month for interns/residents). Of the 52 survey respondents, 89% accessed eviQ's chemotherapy protocols on a daily or weekly basis in the month prior to the survey. 79% of respondents used eviQ at least weekly to initiate therapy and to support monitoring (29%), altering (35%) or ceasing therapy (19%). Consistent with the logfile analysis, advanced oncology trainees report more frequent eviQ use than doctors at other stages of medical training.ConclusionsThe majority of the Australian oncology workforce are registered on eviQ. The frequency of use directly mirrors the clinical role of doctors and attitudes about the utility of eviQ in decision-making. Evaluations of this kind generate important data for system developers and medical educators to drive improvements in electronic decision support to better meet the needs of clinicians. This end-user focus will optimise the uptake of systems which will translate into improvements in processes of care and patient outcomes.