Remote learning developments in postgraduate medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic - A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 71.

BACKGROUND: Prior reviews investigated medical education developments in response to COVID-19, identifying the pivot to remote learning as a key area for future investigation. This review synthesized online learning developments aimed at replacing previously face-to-face 'classroom' activities for postgraduate learners. METHODS: Four online databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO, and PubMed) and MedEdPublish were searched through 21 December 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias. The PICRAT technology integration framework was applied to examine how teachers integrated and learners engaged with technology. A descriptive synthesis and outcomes were reported. A thematic analysis explored limitations and lessons learned. RESULTS: Fifty-one publications were included. Fifteen collaborations were featured, including international partnerships and national networks of program directors. Thirty-nine developments described pivots of existing educational offerings online and twelve described new developments. Most interventions included synchronous activities (n Fif5). Virtual engagement was promoted through chat, virtual whiteboards, polling, and breakouts. Teacher's use of technology largely replaced traditional practice. Student engagement was largely interactive. Underpinning theories were uncommon. Quality assessments revealed moderate to high risk of bias in study reporting and methodology. Forty-five developments assessed reaction; twenty-five attitudes, knowledge or skills; and two behavior. Outcomes were markedly positive. Eighteen publications reported social media or other outcomes, including reach, engagement, and participation. Limitations included loss of social interactions, lack of hands-on experiences, challenges with technology and issues with study design. Lessons learned highlighted the flexibility of online learning, as well as practical advice to optimize the online environment. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers guidance to educators attempting to optimize learning in a post-pandemic world. Future developments would benefit from leveraging collaborations, considering technology integration frameworks, underpinning developments with theory, exploring additional outcomes, and designing and reporting developments in a manner that supports replication.

An update on developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 64.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has fundamentally altered how education is delivered. Gordon et al. previously conducted a review of medical education developments in response to COVID-19; however, the field has rapidly evolved in the ensuing months. This scoping review aims to map the extent, range and nature of subsequent developments, summarizing the expanding evidence base and identifying areas for future research. METHODS: The authors followed the five stages of a scoping review outlined by Arskey and O'Malley. Four online databases and MedEdPublish were searched. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Included articles described developments in medical education deployed in response to COVID-19 and reported outcomes. Data extraction was completed by two authors and synthesized into a variety of maps and charts. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven articles were included: 104 were from North America, Asia and Europe; 51 were undergraduate, 41 graduate, 22 continuing medical education, and 13 mixed; 35 were implemented by universities, 75 by academic hospitals, and 17 by organizations or collaborations. The focus of developments included pivoting to online learning (n = 58), simulation (n = 24), assessment (n = 11), well-being (n = 8), telehealth (n = 5), clinical service reconfigurations (n = 4), interviews (n = 4), service provision (n = 2), faculty development (n = 2) and other (n = 9). The most common Kirkpatrick outcome reported was Level 1, however, a number of studies reported 2a or 2b. A few described Levels 3, 4a, 4b or other outcomes (e.g. quality improvement). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review mapped the available literature on developments in medical education in response to COVID-19, summarizing developments and outcomes to serve as a guide for future work. The review highlighted areas of relative strength, as well as several gaps. Numerous articles have been written about remote learning and simulation and these areas are ripe for full systematic reviews. Telehealth, interviews and faculty development were lacking and need urgent attention.

Developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 63.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020. This rapid systematic review synthesised published reports of medical educational developments in response to the pandemic, considering descriptions of interventions, evaluation data and lessons learned. METHODS: The authors systematically searched four online databases and hand searched MedEdPublish up to 24 May 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias for included articles. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. A descriptive synthesis and outcomes were reported. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were included. The majority were from North America, Asia and Europe. Sixteen studies described Kirkpatrick's outcomes, with one study describing levels 1-3. A few papers were of exceptional quality, though the risk of bias framework generally revealed capricious reporting of underpinning theory, resources, setting, educational methods, and content. Key developments were pivoting educational delivery from classroom-based learning to virtual spaces, replacing clinical placement based learning with alternate approaches, and supporting direct patient contact with mitigated risk. Training for treating patients with COVID-19, service reconfiguration, assessment, well-being, faculty development, and admissions were all addressed, with the latter categories receiving the least attention. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights several areas of educational response in the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and identifies a few articles of exceptional quality that can serve as models for future developments and educational reporting. There was often a lack of practical detail to support the educational community in enactment of novel interventions, as well as limited evaluation data. However, the range of options deployed offers much guidance for the medical education community moving forward and there was an indication that outcome data and greater detail will be reported in the future.