Medical Knowledge Acquisition during a Pandemic: Pediatric Subspecialty in-Training Examination and Board Certification Exam Passing Rate.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in training programs restructuring their curricula. Fellowship programs are required to monitor each fellow's training progress through a combination of formal evaluations, competency tracking, and measures of knowledge acquisition. The American Board of Pediatrics administers subspecialty in-training examinations (SITE) to pediatric fellowship trainees annually and board certification exams at the completion of the fellowship. The objective of this study was to compare SITE scores and certification exam passing rates before and during the pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we collected summative data on SITE scores and certification exam passing rates for all pediatric subspecialties from 2018 to 2022. Trends over time were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis to test for trends across years within one group and t-test analysis to compare groups before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 14 pediatric subspecialties. Comparing prepandemic to pandemic scores, Infectious Diseases, Cardiology, and Critical Care Medicine saw statistically significant decreases in SITE scores. Conversely, Child Abuse and Emergency Medicine saw increases in SITE scores. Emergency Medicine saw a statistically significant increase in certification exam passing rates, while Gastroenterology and Pulmonology saw decreases in exam passing rates. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in restructuring didactics and clinical care based on the needs of the hospital. There were also societal changes affecting patients and trainees. Subspecialty programs with declining scores and certification exam passing rates may need to assess their educational and clinical programs and adapt to the needs of trainees' learning edges.

The Effect of COVID-19 on United States Pediatric Emergency Departments and Its Impact on Trainees.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to quantify the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on pediatric emergency departments (PED) across the United States (US), specifically its impact on trainee clinical education as well as patient volume, admission rates, and staffing models. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of US PEDs, targeting PED clinical leaders via a web-based questionnaire. The survey was sent via three national pediatric emergency medicine distribution lists, with several follow-up reminders. RESULTS: There were 46 questionnaires included, completed by PED directors from 25 states. Forty-two sites provided PED volume and admission data for the early pandemic (March-July 2020) and a pre-pandemic comparison period (March-July 2019). Mean PED volume decreased >32% for each studied month, with a maximum mean reduction of 63.6% (April 2020). Mean percentage of pediatric admissions over baseline also peaked in April 2020 at 38.5% and remained 16.4% above baseline by July 2020. During the study period, 33 (71.1%) sites had decreased clinician staffing at some point. Only three sites (6.7%) reported decreased faculty protected time. All PEDs reported staffing changes, including decreased mid-level use, increased on-call staff, movement of staff between the PED and other units, and added tele-visit shifts. Twenty-six sites (56.5%) raised their patient age cutoff; median was 25 years (interquartile ratio 25-28). Of 44 sites hosting medical trainees, 37 (84.1%) reported a decrease in number of trainees or elimination altogether. Thirty (68.2%) sites had restrictions on patient care provision by trainees: 28 (63.6%) affected medical students, 12 (27.3%) affected residents, and two (4.5%) impacted fellows. Fifteen sites (34.1%) had restrictions on procedures performed by medical students (29.5%), residents (20.5%), or fellows (4.5%). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the marked impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US PEDs, noting decreased patient volumes, increased admission rates, and alterations in staffing models. During the early pandemic, educational restrictions for trainees in the PED setting disproportionately affected medical students over residents, with fellows' experience largely preserved. Our findings quantify the magnitude of these impacts on trainee pediatric clinical exposure during this period.

Characteristics of Fatal Drug Overdoses among College Age Decedents in Tennessee, 2019-2020

Purpose: College age persons experienced unique disruptions to their regular lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, sometimes resulting in negative coping mechanisms. We examined changes in the number of and characteristics of college age fatal drug overdoses before and during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted a statewide cross-sectional study to determine the changes in the number and characteristics of college age fatal drug overdose decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic using 2019-2020 data from the Tennessee State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System. We defined college age as 18-24 years. Frequencies and rates were generated to compare demographics, circumstances, and toxicology between 2019 and 2020. Results: From 2019-2020, 336 college age persons experienced an unintentional or undetermined fatal drug overdose in Tennessee. Characteristics of college age decedents: mean age 21.7 years, 68.5% males, and 71.4% White. Rates of fatal overdoses among college age persons increased 50.0% overall, 150.1% for female decedents, and 141.7% for Black decedents. Fewer people were treated for substance use disorder or mental health conditions (p=0.0243) in 2020. Conclusion: This analysis can inform local and regional public health workers to implement focused prevention and intervention efforts to curtail the overdose epidemic among college age persons in Tennessee.

The collaborative research and service delivery partnership between the United States healthcare system and the U.S. Military Health System during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the military-civilian collaborative efforts which addressed the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in areas including provision of supplies, patient and provider support, and development and dissemination of new vaccine and drug candidates. METHODS: We examined peer reviewed and grey literature from September 2020 to June 2021 to describe the relationship between the U.S. healthcare system and Military Health System (MHS). For analysis, we applied the World Health Organization framework for health systems, which consists of six building blocks. RESULTS: The strongest collaborative efforts occurred in areas of medicine and technology, human resources, and healthcare delivery, most notably in the MHS supplying providers, setting up treatment venues, and participating in development of vaccines and therapeutics. Highlighting that the MHS, with its centralized structure and ability to deploy assets rapidly, is an important contributor to the nation's ability to provide a coordinated, large-scale response to health emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing the relationship between the two health systems is vital to maintaining the nation's capability to meet future health challenges.

Re-examining COVID-19 Self-Reported Symptom Tracking Programs in the United States: Updated Framework Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Early in the pandemic, in 2020, Koehlmoos et al completed a framework synthesis of currently available self-reported symptom tracking programs for COVID-19. This framework described relevant programs, partners and affiliates, funding, responses, platform, and intended audience, among other considerations. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to update the existing framework with the aim of identifying developments in the landscape and highlighting how programs have adapted to changes in pandemic response. METHODS: Our team developed a framework to collate information on current COVID-19 self-reported symptom tracking programs using the "best-fit" framework synthesis approach. All programs from the previous study were included to document changes. New programs were discovered using a Google search for target keywords. The time frame for the search for programs ranged from March 1, 2021, to May 6, 2021. RESULTS: We screened 33 programs, of which 8 were included in our final framework synthesis. We identified multiple common data elements, including demographic information such as race, age, gender, and affiliation (all were associated with universities, medical schools, or schools of public health). Dissimilarities included questions regarding vaccination status, vaccine hesitancy, adherence to social distancing, COVID-19 testing, and mental health. CONCLUSIONS: At this time, the future of self-reported symptom tracking for COVID-19 is unclear. Some sources have speculated that COVID-19 may become a yearly occurrence much like the flu, and if so, the data that these programs generate is still valuable. However, it is unclear whether the public will maintain the same level of interest in reporting their symptoms on a regular basis if the prevalence of COVID-19 becomes more common.

COVID-19 Self-Reported Symptom Tracking Programs in the United States: Framework Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: With the continued spread of COVID-19 in the United States, identifying potential outbreaks before infected individuals cross the clinical threshold is key to allowing public health officials time to ensure local health care institutions are adequately prepared. In response to this need, researchers have developed participatory surveillance technologies that allow individuals to report emerging symptoms daily so that their data can be extrapolated and disseminated to local health care authorities. OBJECTIVE: This study uses a framework synthesis to evaluate existing self-reported symptom tracking programs in the United States for COVID-19 as an early-warning tool for probable clusters of infection. This in turn will inform decision makers and health care planners about these technologies and the usefulness of their information to aid in federal, state, and local efforts to mobilize effective current and future pandemic responses. METHODS: Programs were identified through keyword searches and snowball sampling, then screened for inclusion. A best fit framework was constructed for all programs that met the inclusion criteria by collating information collected from each into a table for easy comparison. RESULTS: We screened 8 programs; 6 were included in our final framework synthesis. We identified multiple common data elements, including demographic information like race, age, gender, and affiliation (all were associated with universities, medical schools, or schools of public health). Dissimilarities included collection of data regarding smoking status, mental well-being, and suspected exposure to COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Several programs currently exist that track COVID-19 symptoms from participants on a semiregular basis. Coordination between symptom tracking program research teams and local and state authorities is currently lacking, presenting an opportunity for collaboration to avoid duplication of efforts and more comprehensive knowledge dissemination.