ABSTRACT
Background COVID-19 has had a catastrophic impact measured in human lives. Medical education has also been impacted: appropriately stringent infection control policies have precluded medical trainees from attending clinical teaching. Lecture-based education has been easily transferred to a digital platform, but bedside teaching has not transitioned so well. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of using a mixed reality (MR) headset to deliver remote bedside teaching to trainee doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods Two MR sessions were led by senior specialty registrars (the clinical trainers) wearing the HoloLens™ headset. The trainers selected patients admitted with pathology requiring their specialist input; thus, the educational sessions were opportunistic. The headset allowed bi-directional video and audio communication between the trainer and trainee doctors during the consultation. Trainee doctor conceptions of bedside teaching, impact of COVID-19 on bedside teaching and technical success of the session was evaluated using pre- and post-round questionnaires using 1 (‘strongly disagree’ or ‘never’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’ or ‘always’) Likert scales and white space questions. Feedback on acceptability of the round was collected verbally from patients after each encounter. Data related to clinician exposure to at risk patients and use of PPE were also collected.Results Pre-questionnaire respondents (n=24) strongly agreed that bedside teaching is key to educating clinicians (7, IQR 6-7). It was also apparent that bedside teaching had become a rarity during COVID-19 (2, IQR 2-4). Session 1 feedback (n=6) was adversely affected by a loose microphone connection. With the issue rectified for session 2 (n=4), most respondents strongly agreed that they felt like they were physically present for the session (7, IQR 6.75-7). Mixed-reality versus in-person teaching led to a 79.5% reduction in cumulative clinician exposure time and 83.3% reduction in PPE use. Conclusions This study is proof of principle that HoloLens™ can be used effectively to deliver high-quality clinical bedside teaching. This novel format confers significant advantages in terms of: minimising exposure of trainees to COVID-19; saving PPE; enabling larger attendance; and convenient accessible real-time clinical training.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems and workers around the world. Such pressures may impact on working conditions, psychological wellbeing and perception of safety. In spite of this, no study has assessed the relationship between safety attitudes and psychological outcomes. Moreover, only limited studies have examined the relationship between personal characteristics and psychological outcomes during Covid-19. MethodsFrom 22nd March 2020 to 18th June 2020, healthcare workers from the United Kingdom, Poland, and Singapore were invited to participate using a self-administered questionnaire comprising the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to evaluate safety culture, burnout and anxiety/depression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of burnout, anxiety and depression. ResultsOf 3,537 healthcare workers who participated in the study, 2,364 (67%) screened positive for burnout, 701 (20%) for anxiety, and 389 (11%) for depression. Significant predictors of burnout included patient-facing roles: doctor (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.49-2.95), nurse (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.04-1.84), and other clinical (OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.45-2.82); being redeployed (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.58), bottom quartile SAQ score (OR 2.43; 95% CI 1.98-2.99), anxiety (OR 4.87; 95% CI 3.92-6.06) and depression (OR 4.06; 95% CI 3.04-5.42). Factors significantly protective for burnout included being tested for SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51-0.82) and top quartile SAQ score (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.22-0.40). Significant factors associated with anxiety and depression, included burnout, gender, safety attitudes and job role. ConclusionOur findings demonstrate a significant burden of burnout, anxiety, and depression amongst healthcare workers. A strong association was seen between SARS-CoV-2 testing, safety attitudes, gender, job role, redeployment and psychological state. These findings highlight the importance of targeted support services for at risk groups and proactive SARS-CoV-2 testing of healthcare workers.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Introduction Covid-19 has placed an unprecedented demand on healthcare systems worldwide. A positive safety culture is associated with improved patient safety and in turn patient outcomes. To date, no study has evaluated the impact of Covid-19 on safety culture. Methods The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) was used to investigate safety culture during Covid-19 at a large UK teaching hospital. Findings were compared with baseline data from 2017. Incident reporting from the year preceding the pandemic was also examined. Results Significant increases were seen in SAQ score for doctors and AHPs (p value) from baseline (p value). A decrease in SAQ was found in the nursing group. Largely due to perception of management and safety climate subscales. During Covid-19, on univariate regression analysis, female gender (p<0.001), age 40-49 years (p<0.01), non-white ethnicity (p<0.001), nursing job role (p<0.001) were all associated with lower SAQ scores. Training (p<0.001) and support (p<0.001) for redeployment were associated with higher SAQ scores. On multivariate analysis, non-disclosed gender (-0.13, -0.26-0.00), non-disclosed ethnicity (-0.11, -0.22-0.00), nursing role (-0.15, -0.24-0.06), and support (0.24, 0.07-0.4) persisted to significance. A significant decrease (p<0.003) was seen in error reporting after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Discussion Differences in reported safety culture may reflect perception of risk due to: occupational exposure, job function, or access to support services. Reductions in incident reporting may be due to increased workload, change in nature of work, or changing safety attitudes. Targeted high-quality support for redeployed staff may help improve safety during future pandemics.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background The COVID-19 pandemic presents unparalleled challenges for the delivery of safe and effective care. In response, many health systems have chosen to restrict access to surgery and reallocate resources; the impact on the provision of surgical services has been profound, with huge numbers of patient now awaiting surgery at the risk of avoidable harm. The challenge now is how do hospitals transition from the current pandemic mode of operation back to business as usual, and ensure that all patients receive equitable, timely and high-quality surgical care during all phases of the public health crisis. Aims and Methods This case study takes carotid endarterectomy as a time-sensitive surgical procedure and simulates 400 compartmental demand modelling scenarios for managing surgical capacity in the UK for two years following the pandemic. Results A total of 7,69 patients will require carotid endarterectomy. In the worst-case scenario, if no additional capacity is provided on resumption of normal service, the waiting list may never be cleared, and no patient will receive surgery within the 2-week target; potentially leading to >1000 avoidable strokes. If surgical capacity is doubled after 1-month of resuming normal service, it will still take more than 6-months to clear the backlog, and 30.8% of patients will not undergo surgery within 2-weeks, with an average wait of 20.3 days for the proceeding 2 years. Conclusions This case study for carotid endarterectomy has shown that every healthcare system is going to have to make difficult decisions for balancing human and capital resources against the needs of patients. It has demonstrated that the timing and size of this effort will critically influence the ability of these systems to return to their baseline and continue to provide the highest quality care for all. The failure to sustainably increase surgical capacity early in the post-COVID-19 period will have significant long-term negative impacts on patients and is likely to result in avoidable harm.