Residency Program Responses to Early COVID-19 Surges Highlight Tension as to Whether Residents Are Learners or Essential Workers.

PURPOSE: To quantify the extent to which internal medicine (IM) residents provided care for patients with COVID-19 and examine characteristics of residency programs with or without plans (at some point) to exclude residents from COVID-19 care during the first 6 months of the pandemic. METHOD: The authors used data from a nationally representative, annually recurring survey of U.S. IM program directors (PDs) to quantify early (March-August 2020) resident participation in COVID-19 care. The survey was fielded from August to December 2020. PDs reported whether they had planned to exclude residents from COVID-19 care (i.e., PTE status). PTE status was tested for association with program and COVID-19 temporal characteristics, resident schedule accommodations, and resident COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: The response rate was 61.5% (264/429). Nearly half of PDs (45.4%, 118/260) reported their program had planned at some point to exclude residents from COVID-19 care. Northeastern U.S. programs represented a smaller percentage of PTE than non-PTE programs (26.3% vs 36.6%; P = .050). PTE programs represented a higher percentage of programs with later surges than non-PTE programs (33.0% vs 13.6%, P = .048). Median percentage of residents involved in COVID-19 care was 75.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 22.5-100.0) for PTE programs, compared with 95.0 (IQR: 60.0-100.0) for non-PTE programs ( P < .001). Residents participated most in intensive care units (87.6%, 227/259) and inpatient wards (80.8%, 210/260). Accommodations did not differ by PTE status. PTE programs reported fewer resident COVID-19 cases than non-PTE programs (median percentage = 2.7 [IQR: 0.0-8.6] vs 5.1 [IQR: 1.6-10.7]; P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: IM programs varied widely in their reported plans to exclude residents from COVID-19 care during the early pandemic. A high percentage of residents provided COVID-19 care, even in PTE programs. Thus, the pandemic highlighted the tension as to whether residents are learners or employees.

Utilizing Telesimulation for Advanced Skills Training in Consultation and Handoff Communication: A Post-COVID-19 GME Bootcamp Experience.

COVID-19 forced the switch to virtual for many educational strategies, including simulation. Virtual formats have the potential to broaden access to simulation training, especially in resource-heavy "bootcamp"-type settings. We converted our in-person communication skills bootcamp to telesimulation and compared effectiveness and satisfaction between formats. During June 2020 orientation, 130 entering interns at one institution participated, using Zoom® to perform one mock consultation and three mock handoffs. Faculty rated performance with checklists and gave feedback. Post-bootcamp surveys assessed participant satisfaction and practice preparedness. Telesimulation performance was comparable to in-person for consultations and slightly inferior for handoffs. Survey response rate was 100%. Compared to in-person, there was higher satisfaction with telesimulation, and interns felt more prepared for practice (95% vs 78%, P < .01); 99% recommended the experience. Fifty percent fewer faculty were required for implementation. Telesimulation was well-received and comparable to in-person bootcamp, representing a feasible, scalable training strategy for communication skills essential in hospital medicine.