Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Language
Year range
1.
Canadian medical education journal ; 12(6):28-34, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1610168

ABSTRACT

The way in which health care is delivered has rapidly changed since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a rapid increase in virtual delivery of clinical care. As a result, the learning environment (LE) in health professions education, which has traditionally been situated in the bricks-and-mortar clinical context, now also requires attention to the virtual space. As a frequently examined topic in the health professions literature, the LE is a critical component in the development and training of future healthcare professionals. Based on a published conceptual framework for the LE from Gruppen et al. in 2019, a conceptual framework for how the LE can manifest through virtual care space is presented here. The four components of personal, social, organizational, physical/virtual spaces are explored, with a discussion of how they can be integrated into virtual care. The authors provide suggestions that health professions educators can consider when adapting their LE to the virtual environment and highlight aspects of its integration that require further research and investigation.

2.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.11.11.20230045

ABSTRACT

Background: To investigate impacts of COVID-19 on CR delivery around the globe, including effects on providers and patients. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a piloted survey was administered to CR programs globally via REDCap from April-June/2020. The 50 members of the ICCPR and personal contacts facilitated program identification. Results: Overall, 1062(18.3% program response rate) responses were received from 70/111(63.1% country response rate) countries in the world with existent CR programs. Of these, 367(49.1%) programs reported they had stopped CR delivery, and 203(27.1%) stopped temporarily (mean=8.3; SD=2.8weeks). Alternative models were delivered in 322(39.7%) programs, primarily through low-tech modes (n=226,19.3%). 353(30.2%) respondents were re-deployed, and 276 (37.3%) felt the need to work due to fear of losing their job, despite the perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 (mean=30.0%, SD=27.4/100). 266(22.5%) reported anxiety, 241(20.4%) were concerned about exposing their family, 113(9.7%) reported increased workload to transition to remote delivery, and 105(9.0%) were juggling caregiving responsibilities during business hours. Patients were often contacting staff regarding grocery shopping for heart-healthy foods (n=333,28.4%), how to use technology to interact with the program (n=329,27.9%), having to stop their exercise because they have no place to exercise (n=303,25.7%), and their risk of death from COVID-19 due to pre-existing cardiovascular disease (n=249,21.2%). Respondents perceived staff (n=488,41.3%) and patient (n=453,38.6%) personal protective equipment, as well as COVID-19 screening (n=414,35.2%) and testing (n=411,35.0%) as paramount to in-person service resumption. Conclusion: Approximately 4400 programs ceased service delivery. Those that remain open are implementing new technologies to ensure their patients receive CR safely, despite the challenges.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anxiety Disorders , Cardiovascular Diseases
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL