If we could turn back time: Imagining time-variable, competency-based medical education in the context of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a paradox in historical models of medical education: organizations responsible for applying consistent standards for progression have needed to adapt to training environments marked by inconsistency and change. Although some institutions have maintained their traditional requirements, others have accelerated their programs to rush nearly graduated trainees to the front lines. One interpretation of the unplanned shortening of the duration of training programs during a crisis is that standards have been lowered. But it is also possible that these trainees were examined according to the same standards as usual and were judged to have already met them. This paper discusses the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the current workforce, provides an analysis of how competency-based medical education (CBME) in the context of the pandemic might have mitigated wide-scale disruption, and identifies structural barriers to achieving an ideal state. The paper further calls upon universities, health centres, governments, certifying bodies, regulatory authorities, and health care professionals to work collectively on a truly time-variable model of CBME. The pandemic has made clear that time variability in medical education already exists and should be adopted widely and formally. If our systems today had used a framework of outcome competencies, sequenced progression, tailored learning, focused instruction, and programmatic assessment, we may have been even more nimble in changing our systems to care for our patients with COVID-19.

Canadian emergency medicine and critical care physician perspectives on pandemic triage in COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Local and regional policies to guide the allocation of scarce critical care resources have been developed, but the views of prospective users are not understood. We sought to investigate the perspectives of Canadian acute care physicians toward triaging scarce critical care resources in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We rapidly deployed a brief survey to Canadian emergency and critical care physicians in April 2020 to investigate current attitudes toward triaging scarce critical care resources and identify subsequent areas for improvement. Descriptive and between-group analyses along with thematic coding were used. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 261 acute care physicians. Feelings of anxiety related to the pandemic were common (65 percent), as well as fears of psychological distress if required to triage scarce resources (77 percent). Only 49 percent of respondents felt confident in making resource allocation decisions. Both critical care and emergency physicians favored multidisciplinary teams over single physicians to allocate scarce critical care resources. Critical care physicians were supportive of decision making by teams not involved in patient care (3.4/5 versus 2.9/5 p = 0.04), whereas emergency physicians preferred to maintain their involvement in such decisions (3.4/5 versus 4.0/5 p = 0.007). Free text responses identified five themes for subsequent action including the need for further guidance on existing triage policies, ethical support in decision making, medicolegal protection, additional tools for therapeutic communications, and healthcare provider psychological support. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for collaboration between policymakers and frontline physicians to develop critical care resource triage policies that wholly consider the diversity of provider perspectives across practice environments.