Palliative and end of life care teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic – what can we learn?

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused far-reaching disruption and medical education had to rapidly adapt to overcome the many challenges. Palliative and end of life care (PEOLC) is a core competency for all UK graduating medical students, and may involve emotionally confronting topics requiring great care during teaching sessions, which is potentially difficult in a virtual environment. The ability of medical schools to foster experiential PEOLC learning may also have been impacted. However, the pandemic may have been a catalyst for some positive changes in PEOLC teaching too. Questions relating to the pandemic were included as part of a larger national survey of PEOLC teaching.MethodAn anonymised web-based 46-item questionnaire was sent to the PEOLC Teaching Lead(s) at 35 UK medical schools. 12 items related to adaptations to teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsResponses received from 31 schools. Previously popular teaching methods, such as lectures and seminars/small group discussions, were newly introduced in an online format in 94% and 87% of medical schools respectively. Utilisation of e-learning increased from 59% to 84%. Other newly introduced teaching methods included: telemedicine, podcasts, augmented reality, virtual reality, and virtual ward rounds. Use of experience in clinical areas as a teaching method decreased from 100% to 68% of medical schools. In 30% of schools, assessments were no longer in-person. 40% of participants declared that they had developed novel teaching methods or resources during the pandemic, mostly relating to technology enhanced learning or simulation. Many participants shared the opinion that the increased use of online resources and pre-recorded sessions will persist after the pandemic.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic necessitated PEOLC teaching to rapidly transition online and the use of novel approaches to facilitate clinical experience, however a number of medical schools intend to continue utilising skills and resources developed during this time.

Medical students remote consulting from home and from the health centre: A survey of prevalence and supervisor perspectives.

PURPOSE: A shift to remote consulting characterised the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in general practice which resulted in significant changes in the delivery of medical education. It is unclear whether these changes have been sustained and how they are perceived by faculty. METHODS: We surveyed a defined population of GP practices during April 2022 with questions to elicit estimates of medical student involvement in different types of remote consultation and supervisor ratings of their confidence in supervising different modalities of remote consultation. We performed thematic analysis on free text responses from a 'resistance to change' perspective. RESULTS: A response rate of 96% (n = 115) was achieved. Analysis of quantitative data identified that a significant proportion of student consultations were remote, however there was a large variation between practices. Supervisor confidence was lowest for students consulting from home. Thematic analysis identified ways in which clinical supervisors may perceive the innovation to be at odds with their overriding commitments to safety, simplicity and quality. CONCLUSIONS: Remote consultations form a significant proportion of medical student activity in many practices. Some supervisors are reluctant to supervise medical students consulting from home and our findings suggest ways of addressing this so that the benefits of the innovation can be harnessed.

Will 'the feeling of abandonment' remain? Persisting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatology patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand rheumatology patient and clinician pandemic-related experiences, medical relationships and behaviours in order to help identify the persisting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and inform efforts to ameliorate the negative impacts and build upon the positive ones. METHODS: Rheumatology patients and clinicians completed surveys (patients n = 1543, clinicians n = 111) and interviews (patients n = 41, clinicians n = 32) between April 2021 and August 2021. A cohort (n = 139) of systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease patients was also followed up from March 2020 to April 2021. Analyses used sequential mixed methods. Pre-specified outcome measures included the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental wellbeing score (WEMWBS), satisfaction with care and healthcare behaviours. RESULTS: We identified multiple ongoing pandemic-induced/increased barriers to receiving care. The percentage of patients agreeing they were medically supported reduced from 74.4% pre-pandemic to 39.7% during-pandemic. Ratings for medical support, medical security and trust were significantly (P <0.001) positively correlated with patient WEMWBS and healthcare behaviours, and decreased during the pandemic. Healthcare-seeking was reduced, potentially long-term, including from patients feeling 'abandoned' by clinicians, and a 'burden' from government messaging to protect the NHS. Blame and distrust were frequent, particularly between primary and secondary care, and towards the UK government, who <10% of clinicians felt had supported clinicians during the pandemic. Clinicians' efforts were reported to be impeded by inefficient administration systems and chronic understaffing, suggestive of the pandemic having exposed and exacerbated existing healthcare system weaknesses. CONCLUSION: Without concerted action-such as rebuilding trust, improved administrative systems and more support for clinicians-barriers to care and negative impacts of the pandemic on trust, medical relationships, medical security and patient help-seeking may persist in the longer term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is part of a pre-registered longitudinal multi-stage trial, the LISTEN study (ISRCTN-14966097), with later COVID-related additions registered in March 2021, including a pre-registered statistical analysis plan.

Telemedicine in rheumatology: a mixed methods study exploring acceptability, preferences and experiences among patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: The Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid global transition towards telemedicine; yet much remains unknown about telemedicine's acceptability and safety in rheumatology. To help address this gap and inform practice, this study investigated rheumatology patient and clinician experiences and views of telemedicine. METHODS: Sequential mixed methodology combined analysis of surveys and in-depth interviews. Between and within-group differences in views of telemedicine were examined for patients and clinicians using t-tests. RESULTS: Surveys (patients n = 1340, clinicians n = 111) and interviews (patients n = 31, clinicians n = 29) were completed between April 2021 and July 2021. The majority of patients were from the UK (96%) and had inflammatory arthritis (32%) or lupus (32%). Patients and clinicians rated telemedicine as worse than face-to-face consultations in almost all categories, although >60% found it more convenient. Building trusting medical relationships and assessment accuracy were great concerns (93% of clinicians and 86% of patients rated telemedicine as worse than face-to-face for assessment accuracy). Telemedicine was perceived to have increased misdiagnoses, inequalities and barriers to accessing care. Participants reported highly disparate telemedicine delivery and responsiveness from primary and secondary care. Although rheumatology clinicians highlighted the importance of a quick response to flaring patients, only 55% of patients were confident that their rheumatology department would respond within 48 hours. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate a preference for face-to-face consultations. Some negative experiences may be due to the pandemic rather than telemedicine specifically, although the risk of greater diagnostic inaccuracies using telemedicine is unlikely to be fully resolved. Training, choice, careful patient selection, and further consultation with clinicians and patients is required to increase telemedicine's acceptability and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This telemedicine study is part of a pre-registered longitudinal multi-stage trial, the LISTEN study (ISRCTN-14966097), with later Covid-related additions registered in March 2021, including a pre-registered statistical analysis plan.

COVID-19 and shielding: experiences of UK patients with lupus and related diseases.

OBJECTIVE: The shielding guidance in the UK for the clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) commenced on 23 March 2020 in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of the pandemic and shielding on patients with lupus and related systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: This was a mixed-methods cohort study (n = 111) including pre-lockdown baseline surveys (March 2020), follow-up surveys (June 2020) and in-depth interviews during July 2020 (n = 25). RESULTS: Most participants had a high level of anxiety regarding their mortality risk from COVID-19 and supported the concept of shielding. Shielding allocations and communications were perceived as inconsistently applied and delivered. More than half of those not classified as CEV reported feeling abandoned, at increased risk and with no support. Shielding communications increased feelings of being 'cared about', but also increased fear, and the 'vulnerable' labelling was perceived by some to damage social and self-identity. More than 80% of those classified as CEV stated that the classification and subsequent communications had changed their social-mixing behaviour. Despite many negative impacts of COVID-19 and shielding/lockdown being identified, including isolation, fear and reduced medical care, the quantitative data during the pandemic showed increases in most measures of wellbeing (which was low at both time points) from pre-lockdown, including reductions in the impact of fatigue and pain (P-values < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Shielding classifications and communications were, in general, viewed positively, although they were perceived as inconsistently delivered and anxiety-provoking by some participants. More frequent positively framed communication and wellbeing support could benefit all SARD patients. Slower-paced lockdown lifestyles might confer health/wellbeing benefits for some people with chronic diseases.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the medical care and health-care behaviour of patients with lupus and other systemic autoimmune diseases: a mixed methods longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to explore the self-reported impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes to care and behaviour in UK patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases, to help ensure that patient experiences are considered in future pandemic planning. METHODS: This was a longitudinal mixed methods study, with a cohort completing baseline surveys in March 2020 and follow-up surveys in June 2020 (n = 111), combined with thematic analysis of the LUPUS UK forum and participant interviews (n = 28). RESULTS: Cancellations of routine care and difficulties in accessing medical support contributed to some participants deteriorating physically, including reports of hospitalizations. The majority of participants reported that fear of COVID-19 and disruptions to their medical care had also adversely impacted their mental health. Feeling medically supported during the pandemic was correlated with multiple measures of mental health and perceptions of care, including the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being score (r = 0.44, P = 0.01). Five themes were identified: detrimental reduction in care; disparities in contact and communication (medical security vs abandonment sub-theme); perceived and actual endangerment; the perfect storm of reduced clinician ability to help and increased patient reticence to seek help; and identifying the patients most vulnerable to reduced medical care. CONCLUSION: The diversion of resources away from chronic disease care was perceived by many participants to have caused adverse outcomes. Fear about increased vulnerability to COVID-19 was high, contributing to health-care-avoidant behaviours. This study also highlights the influence of clinician accessibility and patients feeling medically supported on multiple measures of physical and mental health.