Preparedness of Medical Graduates to serve in clinical settings independently: An exploratory qualitative study

Objectives: To assess the preparedness of fresh medical graduates to perform the duties of an effective house officer in clinical settings independently. Methods: A qualitative exploratory descriptive study was conducted at a public sector tertiary care teaching hospital from September to October, 2021. A total of 14 interviews of the serving house officers were conducted (7 were from Medicine and Allied and seven were from Surgical and Allied). A verbatim Thematic analysis was done. Results: Initial analysis revealed 45 codes which were ultimately reduced to five main themes namely 1. Transition from studentship to house officers with sub-themes (1a) Sense of responsibility, (1b) Hectic and long duty hours, (1c) Proper orientation and guidance, 2. Deficient skill Training during educational journey with, (2a) Deficiency of practical and applied aspects, (2b) inconsistent and varying training patterns, (2c) self-perception and evaluation of preparedness, 3. Lack of awareness about Hospital settings and working system with sub-themes (3a) Support from other doctors, (3b) Being recognized as a doctor in hospital, 4. Inter-professional co-ordination gaps having sub-themes (4a) Communication gap, (4b) Mutual respect as a team and 5. Impact of COVID-19 with sub-theme (5a) Online teaching with no interaction and (5b) segue and progressive skill training. Conclusion: Medical graduates are not confident and well prepared to take the responsibility of patient care independently in clinical settings. Reforms in undergraduate curricula regarding skill training, hospital setup and workings and inter-professional education are advocated by young doctors to enhance their competencies for professional life.

Previous Infection Combined with Vaccination Produces Neutralizing Antibodies with Potency against SARS-CoV-2 Variants.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to evolve in humans. Spike protein mutations increase transmission and potentially evade antibodies raised against the original sequence used in current vaccines. Our evaluation of serum neutralizing activity in both persons soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection (in April 2020 or earlier) or vaccination without prior infection confirmed that common spike mutations can reduce antibody antiviral activity. However, when the persons with prior infection were subsequently vaccinated, their antibodies attained an apparent biologic ceiling of neutralizing potency against all tested variants, equivalent to the original spike sequence. These findings indicate that additional antigenic exposure further improves antibody efficacy against variants. IMPORTANCE As SARS-CoV-2 evolves to become better suited for circulating in humans, mutations have occurred in the spike protein it uses for attaching to cells it infects. Protective antibodies from prior infection or vaccination target the spike protein to interfere with its function. These mutations can reduce the efficacy of antibodies generated against the original spike sequence, raising concerns for reinfections and vaccine failures, because current vaccines contain the original sequence. In this study, we tested antibodies from people infected early in the pandemic (before spike variants started circulating) or people who were vaccinated without prior infection. We confirmed that some mutations reduce the ability of antibodies to neutralize the spike protein, whether the antibodies were from past infection or vaccination. Upon retesting the previously infected persons after vaccination, their antibodies gained the same ability to neutralize mutated spike as the original spike, suggesting that the combination of infection and vaccination drove the production of enhanced antibodies to reach a maximal level of potency. Whether this can be accomplished by vaccination alone remains to be determined, but the results suggest that booster vaccinations may help improve efficacy against spike variants through improving not only antibody quantity, but also quality.

Primary, Recall, and Decay Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antibody Responses.

Studies of two SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines suggested that they yield ∼95% protection from symptomatic infection at least short-term, but important clinical questions remain. It is unclear how vaccine-induced antibody levels quantitatively compare to the wide spectrum induced by natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine response kinetics and magnitudes in persons with prior COVID-19 compared to virus-naïve persons are not well-defined. The relative stability of vaccine-induced versus infection-induced antibody levels is unclear. We addressed these issues with longitudinal assessments of vaccinees with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection using quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) of anti-RBD antibodies. SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals achieved levels similar to mild natural infection after the first vaccination; a second dose generated levels approaching severe natural infection. In persons with prior COVID-19, one dose boosted levels to the high end of severe natural infection even in those who never had robust responses from infection, increasing no further after the second dose. Antiviral neutralizing assessments using a spike-pseudovirus assay revealed that virus-naïve vaccinees did not develop physiologic neutralizing potency until the second dose, while previously infected persons exhibited maximal neutralization after one dose. Finally, antibodies from vaccination waned similarly to natural infection, resulting in an average of ∼90% loss within 90 days. In summary, our findings suggest that two doses are important for quantity and quality of humoral immunity in SARS-CoV-2-naïve persons, while a single dose has maximal effects in those with past infection. Antibodies from vaccination wane with kinetics very similar to that seen after mild natural infection; booster vaccinations will likely be required.