ABSTRACT
Background Social Media is an accompanying staple to conferences but also allows attendees who are attending virtually to interact with the day. GOSH Summer School (GSS) is normally run as a face to face event but had to be moved to a virtual set up this year due to the impact of Covid-19. This forced our attendees to change the way they networked and interacted with the day and how we dispersed education to the attendees. Methods Two main accounts were used to document the day;Twitter: @GOSHPGME and Instagram: @pgme.education. Positive feedback, attendees 'set ups' and screenshots (in replace of taking photos) of the talks were shared. Attendees were encouraged to use the hashtag #GoshSummerSchool or send photos to GOSH PGME Instagram. Results The PGME Twitter account gained 155 followers and was mentioned 196 times. This resulted in 2351 profile visits to the account and overall, 56.1K impressions were made throughout GSS. On Instagram, 24 posts were made and gained 77 new followers. There was an average of 30.5 likes, 0.5 comments, 3.9 post sends, 5.9 post saves, 26.6 profile visits and 436 views per post. 50 posts per day were added to the story feature of Instagram mainly featuring attendee set ups and opinions of the talks given. During the GSS, a survey about which additional resources students use to gain knowledge in medicine, social medial received 48% votes. Discussion The engagement statistics and broad use of social media to compliment the GSS shows how it can be used to increase engagement on virtual conferences. The uptake of social media interaction shows the potential of the platform to enable increased engagement and sharing of medical education. This also enables the increase of long-distance attendees allowing GOSH to open medical education beyond London schools and even worldwide.
ABSTRACT
Background GOSH Summer School (GSS) is a conference for medical students and early career trainees. It has been run as a face-to-face event in the previous two years. COVID-19 outbreak challenged us to reformat the conference digitally. Methods The GSS was run over four days, and the programme had main themes on each day: General Paediatric, Surgery and Innovation, Global health and COVID, and Paediatric Sub-specialties. The conference was hosted as webinar/ Q&A sessions;questions were submitted via a digital platform with anonymous options. Participants were encouraged to interact via conference App. Results 60% of the registrations were medical students from year 4 and 5. 630 different users logged in to the conference, with an average of 300 participants per session compared to 50-75, in the previous two years. According to the daily polls, GSS was the first virtual conference for 59% of the participants since the pandemic;58% preferred to ask questions using an online written platform, 4% preferred to speak directly, and 38% chose both. About the most productive method to deliver education, 36% chose face-to-face sessions, 34% Webinars, and 22% felt these two methods were considered equal. 78% voted that our format of 30 minutes presentation with 15 minutes Q &A was 'about right.' 69% felt our current format of 4-5 hours per day of webinar time was considered the best option. About 227 participants joined the conference App. 346 participants completed the post-conference survey, and 100% voted to continue the online format for next year's conference. Discussion The online GSS was as successful as the previous face-to-face events. We have learned that digital platforms can efficiently deliver high-quality education, promote interaction and engagement with the participants, and reach a larger number of students.
ABSTRACT
Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic has restricted availability of intensive care unit resources. Symptomatic patients with coronary artery disease considered surgical candidates have therefore needed revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We describe demographics/in-hospital clinical outcomes of this novel cohort. Methods: From March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020, anonymized data of 171 patients in 38 U.K. centers were enrolled in a prospective registry. All were considered surgical candidates. Results: Tables 1-3 show demographics, procedural characteristics, and outcomes. A comparison with routine PCI (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society data) and U.K. coronary bypass surgical data are listed if available and appropriate. There was significantly more prior myocardial infarction, PCI, and coronary artery bypass graft in the routine PCI database than in ReVasc Registry patients, suggesting more acute presentation in latter group. However, these were complex patients — mean SYNTAX score of 27.8 (range 9 to 65);and >20 times the number of LMS plus multivessel disease compared to the routine PCI group, with high use of adjunctive imaging. Radial use was high at 94.1%. PCI success was 97.0%. Complete revascularization was 52% and residual SYNTAX score 1.42 (0 to 20). The 2 deaths were acute, and mortality rate comparable to published surgical data. A 50% reduction in in-patient stay was observed. [Formula presented] Conclusion: In this multicenter U.K. registry, in-hospital outcomes with PCI for patients with complex coronary disease, normally treated with coronary artery bypass graft, compared well with surgical data suggesting the role of PCI could be extended. Future long-term follow-up is planned. Categories: CORONARY: Complex and Higher Risk Procedures for Indicated Patients (CHIP)
ABSTRACT
Background: The demographics, angiographic findings, and in-hospital outcomes of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) – positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not well defined. COVID-19–positive ACS patients may have different etiology and outcomes. Patient presentation times from small sample published data appear longer. Methods: Anonymized data on 234 patients in 81 global centers are presented from this prospective registry for the period March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. As of submission date, a further 84 patients have been submitted. All were required to be COVID-19–positive (or have a high index of clinical suspicion, i.e., clinical status plus chest x ray/computed tomography scan findings) and to undergo coronary angiography for suspected ACS. Results: Results are shown in Tables 1–3 and compared with National United Kingdom British Cardiovascular Intervention Society/Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project databases of non–COVID-19 ACS patients where available and appropriate. Major findings were: significantly higher proportion of COVID-19–positive patients had hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and renal dysfunction. In the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) subgroup, symptom-to-door time was >double and door-to-balloon increased by median 20 minutes. Mortality was quadruple and in-patient stay double in this group. Similarly, mortality was significantly higher in non-STEMI COVID-19–positive cohort and in-patient stay also double. The high mortality may be due to the high incidence of cardiogenic shock (13.4% vs. 5%), with its 67% mortality. [Formula presented] Conclusion: These novel data indicate that COVID-19–positive ACS patients present later, have higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and much higher mortality, which are likely to be inter-related. In-patient stay is prolonged compared to non–COVID-19 ACS. Categories: CORONARY: Acute Coronary Syndromes