A Synchronous Hybrid Team-Based Learning Class: Why and How to Do It?

COVID-19 pandemic has transformed much of the medical curriculum delivery from in person to online. Given that interpersonal interaction facilitates team cohesion and professional identity formation, prolonged online learning with minimal social interaction might impact these competencies in medical education. To mitigate the impact of prolonged social isolation, we conducted synchronous team-based learning (TBL) classes, where half the class is physically present and the other is connected via an online platform, termed hybrid TBL. We present practical tips in implementing hybrid TBL for educators teaching in large-sized classes, should conditions exist where not all students can attend in person.

A Synchronous Hybrid Team-Based Learning Class: Why and How to Do It?

COVID-19 pandemic has transformed much of the medical curriculum delivery from in person to online. Given that interpersonal interaction facilitates team cohesion and professional identity formation, prolonged online learning with minimal social interaction might impact these competencies in medical education. To mitigate the impact of prolonged social isolation, we conducted synchronous team-based learning (TBL) classes, where half the class is physically present and the other is connected via an online platform, termed hybrid TBL. We present practical tips in implementing hybrid TBL for educators teaching in large-sized classes, should conditions exist where not all students can attend in person.

Sponsor types of US interventional COVID-19 studies listed in ClinicalTrials.gov

IMPACT: Increase understanding of the types of sponsors responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted millions of lives globally. To learn more about this disease and find potential diagnostic, treatment, and preventative products, the healthcare community has initiated a staggering number of clinical trials. Clinicaltrials.gov was reviewed to determine the types of sponsors who are conducting COVID-19 studies. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Clinicaltrials.gov was searched using terms ‘COVID-19’ and ‘SARS-Cov-2’. Search results were further defined to include only ‘Interventional’ studies. Of these, only studies with sites located in the United States were selected and for which the ‘Condition’ included at least one of the following terms: ‘COVID’, ‘COVID-19’, ‘Coronavirus’, ‘SARS-Cov-2’, ‘SARS’, or ‘2019-nCoV'. Study sponsors were then categorized as: (1) commercial, (2) academic, or (3) other, based on ‘Sponsor’ information within each study listing. A Google search was conducted for any sponsor that was not easily categorized to obtain additional information to support the proper assessment of sponsor type. The types of sponsors were analyzed over time using the ‘First Posted’ date of each study listing. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 3662 studies were retrieved, of which 2075 were ‘Interventional’ studies. The studies were further reduced to 681 studies by including only United States sites and the desired ‘Condition’. The percentage of studies from this refined dataset, by sponsor type, were found to be 63% academic, 34% commercial, and 3% other. The relationship between time and sponsor type demonstrated that academic sponsors had the highest percentage of study postings in the first month (March) of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to commercial and other sponsors. Following this first month, academic study postings gradually declined, while commercial sponsors had an increase in postings per month into July, followed by a gradual decline. Few other sponsor type postings were made and occurred primarily in August. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The number and timing of listings may be a reflection of study intention and regulatory pathway requirements. Additional variables, such as inconsistent terminology, collaborators, funding, and study start date may influence results. Further analysis may reveal how modification of listing information may result in expedited pandemic response.

COVID-19 pandemic response varies by clinical trial sponsor type.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted millions of lives globally. To learn more about this disease and find potential diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventative products, the healthcare community has initiated a staggering number of clinical trials. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was reviewed to determine if trial sponsor type had a relationship to time to COVID-19 response, which was defined as the date from disease discovery in Wuhan, China to ClinicalTrials.gov study "First Posted" date. RESULTS: A total of 673 United States (US) sponsored, interventional study listings were retrieved, of which 293 (43.5%) were Industry-sponsored, 349 (51.9%) were Academic sponsored, and 31 (4.6%) were Other sponsor types. Of the Academic studies, 181 (51.9%) were Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. The average response time for all sponsor types was 189 days, with Academic sponsors having the shortest average response time of 172.6 days (P < 0.001). CTSA hubs had a significantly (P < 0.001) shorter average response time (168.1 days) compared to all other sponsor types (197.4 days). However, while shorter in duration by 9.4 days, response time was not significantly different from non-CTSA sponsors (177.5 days; P = 0.238). Additionally, ANOVA indicated significant relationships (P < 0.001) between funding type, study phase, number of sites, and enrollment size on response time. CONCLUSIONS: Studies posted with the shortest response time were Academic-sponsored trials and included smaller sized investigations of repurposed approved or investigational drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms. A small second wave of study postings occurred approximately 4 months later, and included small, unique therapies targeting prevention or treatment of COVID-19.

A Case Report: Co-presenting COVID-19 Infection and Acute Drug Intoxication.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread throughout the world since late 2019. Symptoms appear after a two-week incubation period and commonly include fever, cough, myalgia or fatigue, and shortness of breath. CASE REPORT: A 32-year-old male with a history of opiate abuse presented to the emergency department with altered mental status. The patient was lethargic and hypoxic with improvement from naloxone. Official chest radiograph was read as normal; however, the treating clinicians noted bilateral interstitial opacities, raising concern for underlying infectious etiology. Opiates and cocaine were positive on drug screen, and an arterial blood gas on room air showed hypoxemia with respiratory acidosis. The patient was intubated during the treatment course due to persistent hypoxemia and for airway protection after resuscitation. The COVID-19 test was positive on admission, and later computed tomography showed ground-glass opacities. The patient was extubated and discharged after one week on the ventilator. CONCLUSION: When screening patients at and during evaluation, physicans should consider a broad differential as patients with atypical presentations may be overlooked as candidates for COVID-19 testing. As screening and evaluation protocols evolve, we emphasize maintaining a high index of suspicion for COVID-19 in patients with atypical symptoms or presenting with other chief complaints in order to avoid spreading the disease.