Evaluation of electronic recruitment efforts of primary care providers as research subjects during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting healthcare providers as research subjects often rely on in-person recruitment strategies. Little is known about recruiting provider participants via electronic recruitment methods. In this study, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, we describe and evaluate a primarily electronic approach to recruiting primary care providers (PCPs) as subjects in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a decision support intervention. METHODS: We adapted an existing framework for healthcare provider research recruitment, employing an electronic consent form and a mix of brief synchronous video presentations, email, and phone calls to recruit PCPs into the RCT. To evaluate the success of each electronic strategy, we estimated the number of consented PCPs associated with each strategy, the number of days to recruit each PCP and recruitment costs. RESULTS: We recruited 45 of 63 eligible PCPs practicing at ten primary care clinic locations over 55 days. On average, it took 17 business days to recruit a PCP (range 0-48) and required three attempts (range 1-7). Email communication from the clinic leaders led to the most successful recruitments, followed by brief synchronous video presentations at regularly scheduled clinic meetings. We spent approximately $89 per recruited PCP. We faced challenges of low email responsiveness and limited opportunities to forge relationships. CONCLUSION: PCPs can be efficiently recruited at low costs as research subjects using primarily electronic communications, even during a time of high workload and stress. Electronic peer leader outreach and synchronous video presentations may be particularly useful recruitment strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04295135 . Registered 04 March 2020.

Modified trauma assessment clinic: A rapid, scalable model.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma Assessment Clinic (TAC) has become a very useful tool in managing busy trauma clinics and reducing attendances. There is good evidence of safety and efficacy. Extension of pre-existing TAC during the COVID pandemic has proven successful. Rapid start-up models for establishing TACs are not well described in the literature. This study aimed to prove that a modified TAC has similar efficacy and can be initiated in rapid start-up manner with minimal cost. METHODS: A new electronic pathway of referral with a template was created between the Emergency Department (ED) and the Orthopaedic department. RESULTS: Following introduction of our modified TAC 32% of patients referred to the TAC did not require in-person review thereby avoiding any additional hospital visit. Average time to first in-person review appointment was 15 days. Combining these, the projected reduction in all fracture clinic attendance was 48%. CONCLUSION: This paper describes the process of how a major teaching and tertiary referral orthopaedic unit developed an accelerated establishment process for a Trauma Assessment Clinic as an alternative to the traditional "Glasgow model". This can be instituted quickly, safely, and is scalable for use in a large hospital. The template provided can be used as a guide or "blueprint" should other orthopaedic departments require a rapid start-up of a Trauma Assessment Clinic.

Return to Play Following COVID-19 Infection-A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic has had catastrophic impact on a global scale, affecting people from all walks of life including elite athletes. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reported rates of return to play (RTP) in conjunction with the expert-derived guidelines previously recommended to enable safe RTP post COVID-19 infection. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Two independent reviewers searched the literature based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, utilizing the MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases. Only studies that reported rates of RTP and/or recommended guidelines for safe RTP were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 17 studies (3 level III and 14 level V) were included. A total of 3 studies reported rates of RTP in a total of 1255 athletes and 623 officials; 72 (30 symptomatic) were infected with COVID-19, 100% of whom were able to RTP post COVID-19 infection. Of the 14 studies recommending guidelines for safe RTP, 3 and 9 studies recommended 7 and 14 days of rest in isolation respectively for asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 infection, prior to safe RTP. In contrast, 7 studies recommended 3 to 6 months of rest (following 14 d isolation) in cases of COVID-19-induced myocarditis as a safe timeframe for safe RTP. Of the 11 studies reporting on whether blanket testing prior to RTP was recommended, only 7 studies recommended a negative test result as mandatory prior to RTP for athletes previously infected with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Although excellent rates of RTP have been reported for elite athletes post COVID-19 infection, discrepancies in recommended rest periods, requirement for mandatory negative test results, and the magnitude of screening investigations required continue to exist in the literature, with a need for further standardized international guidelines required in future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V; systematic review of all forms of evidence.