A smartphone-based online platform for clinical skills training and assessment with standardized patients: platform development and pilot study outcomes.

There are limitations and difficulties in the management of traditional in-person standardized patient (SP) practice. The latest developments in online communication tools and the COVID-19 pandemic have promoted the needs for online clinical skills training objectively. However, existing commercial online platforms may not meet the requests for SP-based medical simulation. This paper described the methodology applied to develop a smartphone-based online platform for the management of clinical skills training and assessment with remote SPs, and aimed to determine whether this new platform is acceptable or useful through a pilot run in September 2020. The post-run survey including questionnaire inspired by technological acceptance model and determinants of the perceived ease of use was used to assess the acceptability and usefulness of the platform. Twenty four-year students of clinical medicine participated in the pilot study with twenty SPs and ten faculties. Data from the post-run survey showed that there was a general recognition that the platform is easy to use among all the users. Two questions regarding the usefulness of the platform showed significant differences between the SPs/faculties and the students. More SPs found the platform useful as a training method than the students did. The faculties showed more attempts than the students to use this platform for clinical skills training in the future. This smartphone-based online platform was widely accepted among the tested students, SPs and faculties, which meets the requests and challenges of the new era. It provides an effective approach for clinical skills training and assessment with remote SPs.

Pulmonologists’ work and clinical life during the COVID-19 pandemic: a society-led survey

The continuous and ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highly affected pulmonologists and pulmonology residents worldwide. To identify where additional work and resources must be focused, it is important to explore on what parameters the pulmonologists and residents are challenged. We present the results of a society-led survey on pulmonologists’ and pulmonology residents’ work and clinical life during the pandemic. A total of 579 pulmonologists and pulmonology residents completed the survey (5.9% of the European Respiratory Society's physician members) and most respondents answered that they have had sufficient training on how to handle patients with COVID-19 (e.g. how to handle patients to prevent virus spread). However, more than a third of the respondents (n=210, 36.3%) had performed procedures they did not feel competent in due to the pandemic and, for example, relocation to COVID-19 units. We must strive for investment in research on medical education and potentially simulation-based training in technical procedures to ensure competence and decrease the insecurity about new procedures, especially in the setting of worldwide pandemics or acute critical situations. Pulmonologists and pulmonology residents are highly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. More than a third have performed procedures they did not feel competent in. Investment in medical education research is necessary to counter future crises and pandemics.https://bit.ly/3tiOVh0

Pulmonologists' work and clinical life during the COVID-19 pandemic: a society-led survey.

The continuous and ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highly affected pulmonologists and pulmonology residents worldwide. To identify where additional work and resources must be focused, it is important to explore on what parameters the pulmonologists and residents are challenged. We present the results of a society-led survey on pulmonologists' and pulmonology residents' work and clinical life during the pandemic. A total of 579 pulmonologists and pulmonology residents completed the survey (5.9% of the European Respiratory Society's physician members) and most respondents answered that they have had sufficient training on how to handle patients with COVID-19 (e.g. how to handle patients to prevent virus spread). However, more than a third of the respondents (n=210, 36.3%) had performed procedures they did not feel competent in due to the pandemic and, for example, relocation to COVID-19 units. We must strive for investment in research on medical education and potentially simulation-based training in technical procedures to ensure competence and decrease the insecurity about new procedures, especially in the setting of worldwide pandemics or acute critical situations.

Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

A safe way of securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is one of the priorities of an advanced cardiovascular life support algorithm for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to compare intubation success rates (ISR) and intubation time (IT) of different laryngoscopes for simulated COVID-19 patients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty four active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) and McGrath videolaryngoscope (McGrath) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE). Without PPE, ISRs were 87% and 98% for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.32). ITs were 22.5 s (IQR: 19-26) and 19.5 s (IQR: 17-21) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.005). With PPE, first-pass ISR were 30% and 89% with MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall success rates were 83% vs. 100% (p = 0.002). Median ITs were 34.0 s (IQR: 29.5-38.5) and 24.8 s (IQR: 21-29) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the McGrath videolaryngoscope appears to possess significant advantages over the Macintosh direct laryngoscope when used by paramedics in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 intubation scenarios.

Valid and Reliable Assessment of Upper Respiratory Tract Specimen Collection Skills during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Proper specimen collection is the most important step to ensure accurate testing for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other infectious diseases. Assessment of healthcare workers' upper respiratory tract specimen collection skills is needed to ensure samples of high-quality clinical specimens for COVID-19 testing. This study explored the validity evidence for a theoretical MCQ-test and checklists developed for nasopharyngeal (NPS) and oropharyngeal (OPS) specimen collection skills assessment. We found good inter-item reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.76) for the items of the MCQ-test and high inter-rater reliability using the checklist for the assessment of OPS and NPS skills on 0.86 and 0.87, respectively. The MCQ scores were significantly different between experts (mean 98%) and novices (mean 66%), p < 0.001, and a pass/fail score of 91% was established. We found a significant discrimination between checklist scores of experts (mean 95% score for OPS and 89% for NPS) and novices (mean 50% score for OPS and 36% for NPS), p < 0.001, and a pass/fail score was established of 76% for OPS and 61% for NPS. Further, the results also demonstrated that a group of non-healthcare educated workers can perform upper respiratory tract specimen collection comparably to experts after a short and focused simulation-based training session. This study, therefore, provides validity evidence for the use of a theoretical and practical test for upper respiratory specimens' collection skills that can be used for competency-based training of the workers in the COVID-19 test centers.

Simulation-Based Virtual-Reality Patient-Specific Rehearsal Prior to Endovascular Procedures: A Systematic Review.

Patient-specific rehearsal (PsR) is a new concept whereby a procedure can be rehearsed virtually using the exact patient's anatomical data prior to performing the real procedure. The aim of this study was to ascertain if endovascular virtual-reality PsR simulation enhanced performance in real life. This was done by performing a systematic review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science concerning PsR in endovascular procedures. All publications were handled using Covidence. Reference lists were also screened. Data extracted from the studies were realism rating, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, number of angiograms and reduction of errors. Kirkpatrick's four-level model for measuring the efficiency of training was used for guidance of the relevance of studies. The search yielded 1155 results after the exclusion of duplicates, and 11 studies were included. Four studies had a control group, including one randomized trial; the remaining seven were feasibility studies. The realism was rated high, and overall, the studies showed improvements in procedure time, fluoroscopy time and contrast volume after PsR. One study assessed and confirmed the reduction in errors after PsR. Only two studies included more than 15 patients in their cohort. Kirkpatrick's model was applied to all studies, with one study reaching level 4. All studies found the concept of PsR to be feasible and realistic. The studies with a control group showed a reduction of overall procedure time, radiation exposure and potential errors in endovascular procedures following PsR.

Comparison of intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing personal protective equipment in simulated COVID-19 resuscitation: A randomized crossover simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital emergency care of children is challenging. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical personnel should use personal protective equipment against aerosol-generating procedures, the efficiency of medical procedures may decrease. The study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of different intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits in simulated paediatric COVID-19 resuscitation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blinded simulation trial was performed. Nursing staff attending Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support courses accredited by the American Heart Association participated in the study. A total of 65 nurses were recruited and randomly assigned to different study groups. They received standard training on intravascular access methods employing distinct devices. The participants wore biosafety Level-2 suits and performed vascular access with the following intraosseous devices: NIO-P, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi needle; intravenous (IV) access was used as a reference method. Both the order of participants and the access methods were random. Each participant performed intravascular access with each of the four methods tested. The effectiveness of the first attempt to obtain intravascular access and the following time parameters were analysed: the time between grasping the intravascular device out of the original packing until infusion line connection. The ease of the procedure was measured with a visual analogue scale (1 - easy; 10 - difficult). RESULTS: The first attempt success rate of intravascular access by using NIO-P and EZ-IO equalled 100% and was statistically significantly higher than that with the Jamshidi needle (80.0%; p = 0.02) and with the IV method (69.2%; p = 0.005). The time required to connect the infusion line varied and amounted to 33 ± 4 s for NIO-P compared to 37 ± 6.7 s for EZ-IO (p<0.001), 43 ± 7 s for Jamshidi (p<0.001), and 98.5 ± 10 s for IV access (p<0.001). The procedure was easiest in the case of NIO-P and EZ-IO (2 ± 1 points; p=1.0) compared with Jamshidi (5 ± 3 points; p<0.001) and IV access (7 ± 2 points; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits were able to obtain intraosseous access faster and more effectively as compared with IV access during simulated COVID-19 paediatric resuscitation. The most effective method of intravascular access was the NIO-P intraosseous device. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm the results.

Training and education of healthcare workers during viral epidemics: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is necessary to train a large number of healthcare workers (HCW) within a limited time to ensure adequate human resources during an epidemic. There remains an urgent need for best practices on development and implementation of training programmes. OBJECTIVE: To explore published literature in relation to training and education for viral epidemics as well as the effect of these interventions to inform training of HCW. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches in five databases performed between 1 January 2000 and 24 April 2020 for studies reporting on educational interventions in response to major viral epidemics. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies on educational interventions developed, implemented and evaluated in response to major global viral outbreaks from 2000 to 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare workers. INTERVENTIONS: Educational or training interventions. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Descriptive information were extracted and synthesised according to content, competency category, educational methodology, educational effects and level of educational outcome. Quality appraisal was performed using a criterion-based checklist. RESULTS: A total of 15 676 records were identified and 46 studies were included. Most studies were motivated by the Ebola virus outbreak with doctors and nurses as primary learners. Traditional didactic methods were commonly used to teach theoretical knowledge. Simulation-based training was used mainly for training of technical skills, such as donning and doffing of personal protective equipment. Evaluation of the interventions consisted mostly of surveys on learner satisfaction and confidence or tests of knowledge and skills. Only three studies investigated transfer to the clinical setting or effect on patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS: The included studies describe important educational experiences from past epidemics with a variety of educational content, design and modes of delivery. High-level educational evidence is limited. Evidence-based and standardised training programmes that are easily adapted locally are recommended in preparation for future outbreaks.

Educational needs in the COVID-19 pandemic: a Delphi study among doctors and nurses in Wuhan, China.

OBJECTIVE: To identify theoretical and technical aspects regarding treatment, prevention of spread and protection of staff to inform the development of a comprehensive training curriculum on COVID-19 management. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nine hospitals caring for patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. PARTICIPANTS: 134 Chinese healthcare professionals (74 doctors and 60 nurses) who were deployed to Wuhan, China during the COVID-19 epidemic were included. A two-round Delphi process was initiated between March and May 2020. In the first round, the participants identified knowledge, technical and behavioural (ie, non-technical) skills that are needed to treat patients, prevent spread of the virus and protect healthcare workers. In round 2, the participants rated each item according to its importance to be included in a training curriculum on COVID-19. Consensus for inclusion in the final list was set at 80%. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge, technical and behavioural (ie, non-technical) skills that could form the basis of a training curriculum for COVID-19 management. RESULTS: In the first round 1398 items were suggested by the doctors and reduced to 67 items after content analysis (treatment of patients: n=47; infection prevention and control: n=20). The nurses suggested 1193 items that were reduced to 70 items (treatment of patients: n=49; infection prevention and control: n=21). In round 2, the response rates were 82% in doctors and 93% in nurses. Fifty-eight items of knowledge, technical and behavioural skills were agreed on by the doctors to include in the final list. For the nurses, 58 items were agreed on. CONCLUSIONS: This needs assessment process resulted in a comprehensive list of knowledge, technical and behavioural skills for COVID-19 management. Educators can use these to guide decisions regarding content of training curricula not only for COVID-19 management but also in preparation for future viral pandemic outbreaks.

Training non-intensivist doctors to work with COVID-19 patients in intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Due to an expected surge of COVID-19 patients in need of mechanical ventilation, the intensive care capacity was doubled at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, in March 2020. This resulted in an urgent need for doctors with competence in working with critically ill COVID-19 patients. A training course and a theoretical test for non-intensivist doctors were developed. The aims of this study were to gather validity evidence for the theoretical test and explore the effects of the course. METHODS: The 1-day course was comprised of theoretical sessions and hands-on training in ventilator use, hemodynamic monitoring, vascular access, and use of personal protective equipment. Validity evidence was gathered for the test by comparing answers from novices and experts in intensive care. Doctors who participated in the course completed the test before (pretest), after (posttest), and again within 8 weeks following the course (retention test). RESULTS: Fifty-four non-intensivist doctors from 15 different specialties with a wide range in clinical experience level completed the course. The test consisted of 23 questions and demonstrated a credible pass-fail standard at 16 points. Mean pretest score was 11.9 (SD 3.0), mean posttest score 20.6 (1.8), and mean retention test score 17.4 (2.2). All doctors passed the posttest. CONCLUSION: Non-intensivist doctors, irrespective of experience level, can acquire relevant knowledge for working in the ICU through a focused 1-day evidence-based course. This knowledge was largely retained as shown by a multiple-choice test supported by validity evidence. The test is available in appendix and online.