Adapting a first- and second-year medical student psychiatric interview course for virtual learning.

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a first- and second-year psychiatric interviewing course was converted to a virtual platform with interviews performed via video conferencing. Telepsychiatry has been shown to be an effective modality for patient care, but little is known about the effectiveness of using this modality to teach the psychiatric interview. We sought to examine how switching to remote learning would affect the quality of the course. Methods: We compared student course evaluations from 2019 (in-person) with evaluations from the 2020 (virtual). Using Likert scales, students were asked to rate their comfort in interviewing patients, discussing emotional and psychological topics, and documenting the encounter. Student responses were supplemented with qualitative feedback and input from faculty facilitators. Results: We found no significant difference in student reports of their overall experience with the course, comfort with interviewing patients or with discussing emotional and psychological issues. The course reduced student self-reported stigma toward mental illness. Conclusions: The virtual delivery of this course offers learners a very similar experience to an in-person course. Looking beyond the pandemic, this model could have applications in other institutions where geographic or other logistical considerations would impede the implementation of such a course in-person.

Limitations of Traditional Models for Medical Decision-Making Capacity and Ethical Clinical Practice in Light of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has upended psychiatric practice and poses unprecedented challenges for maintaining access to quality care. We discuss the ethical challenges of treating a patient with schizophrenia in need of hospitalization but who declined severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) surveillance testing. The traditional framework of capacity assessment depends on the patient's ability to weigh risks and benefits, but this framework is of limited utility in context of the COVID-19 pandemic; the personal benefits of testing for the patient are unclear and in fact may not outweigh the risk of being declined psychiatric care. Moreover, classic capacity assessment does not well account for physicians' obligations to other patients and the public health. We conclude that physicians cannot coerce surveillance testing, and we consider the implications of requiring SARS-CoV-2 testing for accessing mental health treatment.