A Global Survey of the Effect of COVID-19 on Critical Care Training.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wahlster S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8787747 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A Global Survey of the Effect of COVID-19 on Critical Care Training.
Wahlster Sarah S Sharma Monisha M Çoruh Başak B Town James A JA Lewis Ariane A Lobo Suzana M SM Maia Israel S IS Hartog Christiane C Patel Pratik V PV Kross Erin K EK Amorim Edilberto E Greer David M DM Curtis J Randall JR Creutzfeldt Claire J CJ
ATS scholar 20211021 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:The current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has unearthed many weaknesses in healthcare systems worldwide. In doing so, it has caused high-income countries to deal with the uncomfortable situation of resource allocation that has long been a daily occurrence in low- and middle-income countries. The shortage of equipment continues to be a major problem in low- and middle-income countries, but there is an even greater shortage of human resources in the form of trained individuals capable of caring for critically ill patients. With physicians being in short supply in many areas throughout Africa, the question becomes where do these human resources come from? In Kenya, clinical officers are the frontline workers and backbone of care in many healthcare settings and outnumber physicians four to one. AIC Kijabe Hospital, located in rural Kenya, recognized this need and identified this cohort of clinicians as a means of ramping up local emergency and critical care. In doing so, the Emergency and Critical Care Clinical Officer training program was created in 2015. Since its inception, the Emergency and Critical Care Clinical Officer program has been training nonphysician clinicians to care for critically ill patients with physician support. In this perspective piece, we outline our attempt at capitalizing on this pool of human resources to advance the care of critically ill patients, describe lessons learned along the way, and try to highlight the utility of their unique skill set in the setting of a pandemic.
| S-EPMC8043268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: To describe the utility and patterns of COVID-19 simulation scenarios across different international healthcare centers. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, international survey for multiple simulation centers team members, including team-leaders and healthcare workers (HCWs), based on each center's debriefing reports from 30 countries in all WHO regions. The main outcome measures were the COVID-19 simulations characteristics, facilitators, obstacles, and challenges encountered during the simulation sessions. Results: Invitation was sent to 343 simulation team leaders and multidisciplinary HCWs who responded; 121 completed the survey. The frequency of simulation sessions was monthly (27.1%), weekly (24.8%), twice weekly (19.8%), or daily (21.5%). Regarding the themes of the simulation sessions, they were COVID-19 patient arrival to ER (69.4%), COVID-19 patient intubation due to respiratory failure (66.1%), COVID-19 patient requiring CPR (53.7%), COVID-19 transport inside the hospital (53.7%), COVID-19 elective intubation in OR (37.2%), or Delivery of COVID-19 mother and neonatal care (19%). Among participants, 55.6% reported the team's full engagement in the simulation sessions. The average session length was 30-60 min. The debriefing process was conducted by the ICU facilitator in (51%) of the sessions followed by simulation staff in 41% of the sessions. A total of 80% reported significant improvement in clinical preparedness after simulation sessions, and 70% were satisfied with the COVID-19 sessions. Most perceived issues reported were related to infection control measures, followed by team dynamics, logistics, and patient transport issues. Conclusion: Simulation centers team leaders and HCWs reported positive feedback on COVID-19 simulation sessions with multidisciplinary personnel involvement. These drills are a valuable tool for rehearsing safe dynamics on the frontline of COVID-19. More research on COVID-19 simulation outcomes is warranted; to explore variable factors for each country and healthcare system.
| S-EPMC8500233 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic resulted in redeployment of non-critical care-trained providers to intensive care units across the world. Concurrently, traditional venues for delivery of medical education faced major disruptions. The need for a virtual forum to fill knowledge gaps for healthcare workers caring for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was apparent in the early stages of the pandemic. Objective: The weekly, open-access COVID-19 Critical Care Training Forum (CCCTF) organized by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) provided a global audience access to timely content relevant to their learning needs. The goals of the forum were threefold: to aid healthcare providers in assessment and treatment of patients with COVID-19, to reduce provider anxiety, and to disseminate best practices. Methods: The first 13 ATS CCCTF sessions streamed live from April to July 2020. Structured debriefs followed each session and participant feedback was evaluated in planning of subsequent sessions. A second set of 14 sessions streamed from August to November 2020. Content experts were recruited from academic institutions across the United States. Results: As of July 2020, the ATS CCCTF had 2,494 live participants and 7,687 downloads for a total of 10,181 views. The majority of participants had both completed training (58.6%) and trained in critical care (53.8%). Physicians made up a majority (82.2%) of the audience that spanned the globe (61% were international attendees). Conclusion: We describe the rapid and successful implementation of an open-access medical education forum to address training and knowledge gaps among healthcare personnel caring for patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8362763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale: Clinical and research training opportunities in global health are of increasing interest to medical trainees, but little is known about such opportunities in U.S.-based pulmonary and pulmonary/critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship programs.Objectives: Summarize currently available global health-related training opportunities and identify potential barriers to implementing global health curricula among U.S.-based PCCM fellowship programs.Methods: We sent a confidential, online, targeted needs assessment to PCCM fellowship program directors and associate program directors. Data collected included program demographics, currently available global health-related clinical and research training opportunities, potential barriers to the implementation of global health-related programmatic content, and perceived interest in global health-related training opportunities by current and/or prospective trainees. To evaluate for nonresponse bias, we performed an online search to identify global health-related training opportunities offered by nonresponding programs.Results: Out of 171 surveyed programs, 63 PCCM fellowship programs (37%) provided survey responses. Most responses (n = 56, 89%) were from combined PCCM training programs; 66% (n = 40) of programs offered at least one component of global health-related clinical or research training. Overall, 27% (n = 17) had a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training Grant (National Institutes of Health T32), 73% (n = 46) had fewer than 35 faculty members, and 51% (n = 32) had at least one faculty member conducting global health-focused research. Most responding programs (66%, n = 40) offered at least one global health-related educational component. Among programs that would like to offer global health-related training components, the most common barriers included competing priorities for lecture content and a lack of in-division mentors with global health experience, a champion for global health-related activities, and established partnerships outside the United States.Conclusions: PCCM program leaders are interested in offering global health-related training opportunities, but important barriers include lack of mentorship, dedicated fellowship time, and established global partnerships. Future research is needed to better understand global health-related interests and training needs of incoming fellows and to design creative solutions for providing global health-related training across academic institutions with variable global health-related training capacities.
| S-EPMC6850800 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7194590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim was to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the clinical experiences, research opportunities and well-being of rheumatology trainees.MethodsA voluntary, anonymous, Web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish or French from 19 August 2020 to 5 October 2020. Adult and paediatric rheumatology trainees were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales, the perceptions of trainees regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient care and redeployment, learning and supervision, research and well-being were assessed.ResultsThere were 302 respondents from 33 countries, with 83% in adult rheumatology training. An increase in non-rheumatology clinical work was reported by 45%, with 68% of these having been redeployed to COVID-19. Overall, trainees reported a negative impact on their learning opportunities during rheumatology training, including outpatient clinics (79%), inpatient consultations (59%), didactic teaching (55%), procedures (53%), teaching opportunities (52%) and ultrasonography (36%). Impacts on research experiences were reported by 46% of respondents, with 39% of these reporting that COVID-19 negatively affected their ability to continue their pre-pandemic research. Burnout and increases in stress were reported by 50% and 68%, respectively. Physical health was negatively impacted by training programme changes in 25% of respondents.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on rheumatology training and trainee well-being. Our study highlights the extent of this impact on research opportunities and clinical care, which are highly relevant to future curriculum planning and the clinical learning environment.
| S-EPMC8982766 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected ICUs and critical care health-care providers (HCPs) worldwide.Research questionHow do regional differences and perceived lack of ICU resources affect critical care resource use and the well-being of HCPs?Study design and methodsBetween April 23 and May 7, 2020, we electronically administered a 41-question survey to interdisciplinary HCPs caring for patients critically ill with COVID-19. The survey was distributed via critical care societies, research networks, personal contacts, and social media portals. Responses were tabulated according to World Bank region. We performed multivariate log-binomial regression to assess factors associated with three main outcomes: limiting mechanical ventilation (MV), changes in CPR practices, and emotional distress and burnout.ResultsWe included 2,700 respondents from 77 countries, including physicians (41%), nurses (40%), respiratory therapists (11%), and advanced practice providers (8%). The reported lack of ICU nurses was higher than that of intensivists (32% vs 15%). Limiting MV for patients with COVID-19 was reported by 16% of respondents, was lowest in North America (10%), and was associated with reduced ventilator availability (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 2.10; 95% CI, 1.61-2.74). Overall, 66% of respondents reported changes in CPR practices. Emotional distress or burnout was high across regions (52%, highest in North America) and associated with being female (mechanical ventilation, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33), being a nurse (ARR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.53), reporting a shortage of ICU nurses (ARR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33), reporting a shortage of powered air-purifying respirators (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.55), and experiencing poor communication from supervisors (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46).InterpretationOur findings demonstrate variability in ICU resource availability and use worldwide. The high prevalence of provider burnout and its association with reported insufficient resources and poor communication from supervisors suggest a need for targeted interventions to support HCPs on the front lines.
| S-EPMC7484703 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST416 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted medical education for trainees of all levels. Although telesimulation was initially used to train in resource-limited environments, it may be a reasonable alternative for replicating authentic patient experiences for medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear whether a more passive approach through telesimulation training is as effective as traditional in-person simulation training.ObjectiveOur aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of in-person versus remote simulation training on learners' comfort with managing critical care scenarios.MethodsThis was a prospective observational cohort study assessing the impact of an in-person versus remote simulation course on volunteer fourth-year medical students from February to April 2021 at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. Precourse and postcourse surveys were performed anonymously using an online secure resource.ResultsIn the in-person learners, there was statistically significant improvement in learner comfort across all technical, behavioral, and cognitive domains. In remote learners, there was a trend toward improvement in self-reported comfort across technical and cognitive domains in the telesimulation course. However, the only statistically significant improvement in postcourse surveys of telesimulation learners, compared with baseline, was in running codes. Regardless of the training modality, the students had a positive experience with the critical care simulation course, ranking it, on average, 9.6 out of 10 (9.9 in in-person simulation vs. 9.3 in telesimulation; P = 0.06).ConclusionWe demonstrated that implementation of a telesimulation-based simulation course focusing on critical care cases is feasible and well received by trainees. Although a telesimulation-based simulation course may not be as effective for remote learners as active in-person participants, our study provided evidence that there was still a trend toward improving provider readiness across technical and cognitive domains when approaching critical care cases.
| S-EPMC8787731 | biostudies-literature