Reimagining Undergraduate Medical Education in a Post-COVID-19 Landscape.

Online education due to the COVID-19 pandemic caused many medical schools to increasingly employ asynchronous and virtual learning that favored student independence and flexibility. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted existing shortcomings of the healthcare field in providing for marginalized and underserved communities. This perspective piece details the authors' opinions as medical students and medical educators on how to leverage the aspects of pandemic medical education to train physicians who can better address these needs.

Best Practices for Remediation in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Training.

Background: Remediation of struggling learners in pulmonary and critical care fellowship programs is a challenge, even for experienced medical educators. Objective: This evidence-based narrative review provides a framework program leaders may use to address fellows having difficulty achieving competency during fellowship training. Methods: The relevant evidence for approaches on the basis of each learner's needs is reviewed and interpreted in the context of fellowship training in pulmonary medicine and critical care. Issues addressed include bias in fellow assessments and remediation, the impacts of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, the specific challenges of pulmonary and critical care fellowship programs, a brief review of relevant legal issues, guidance on building and leveraging program resources, and a discussion of learner outcomes. Results: This results in a concise, evidence-based toolkit for program leaders based around four pillars: early identification, fellow assessment, collaborative intervention, and reassessment. Important concepts also include the need for documentation, clear and written communication, and fellow-directed approaches to the creation of achievable goals. Conclusion: Evidence-based remediation helps struggling learners in pulmonary and critical care fellowship to improve their ability to meet Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones.

Characteristics of Post-ICU and Post-COVID Recovery Clinics in 29 U.S. Health Systems

OBJECTIVES: The multifaceted long-term impairments resulting from critical illness and COVID-19 require interdisciplinary management approaches in the recovery phase of illness. Operational insights into the structure and process of recovery clinics (RCs) from heterogeneous health systems are needed. This study describes the structure and process characteristics of existing and newly implemented ICU-RCs and COVID-RCs in a subset of large health systems in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Thirty-nine RCs, representing a combined 156 hospitals within 29 health systems participated. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: RC demographics, referral criteria, and operating characteristics were collected, including measures used to assess physical, psychologic, and cognitive recoveries. Thirty-nine RC surveys were completed (94% response rate). ICU-RC teams included physicians, pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, and advanced practice providers. Funding sources for ICU-RCs included clinical billing (n = 20, 77%), volunteer staff support (n = 15, 58%), institutional staff/space support (n = 13, 46%), and grant or foundation funding (n = 3, 12%). Forty-six percent of RCs report patient visit durations of 1 hour or longer. ICU-RC teams reported use of validated scales to assess psychologic recovery (93%), physical recovery (89%), and cognitive recovery (86%) more often in standard visits compared with COVID-RC teams (psychologic, 54%;physical, 69%;and cognitive, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Operating structures of RCs vary, though almost all describe modest capacity and reliance on volunteerism and discretionary institutional support. ICU- and COVID-RCs in the United States employ varied funding sources and endorse different assessment measures during visits to guide care coordination. Common features include integration of ICU clinicians, interdisciplinary approach, and focus on severe critical illness. The heterogeneity in RC structures and processes contributes to future research on the optimal structure and process to achieve the best postintensive care syndrome and postacute sequelae of COVID outcomes.

Prospective arrhythmia surveillance after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrhythmias have been observed among patients hospitalised with acute COVID-19 infection, and palpitations remain a common symptom among the much larger outpatient population of COVID-19 survivors in the convalescent stage of the disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine arrhythmia prevalence among outpatients after a COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: Adults with a positive COVID-19 test and without a history of arrhythmia were prospectively evaluated with 14-day ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring. Participants were instructed to trigger the monitor for palpitations. RESULTS: A total of 51 individuals (mean age 42±11 years, 65% women) underwent monitoring at a median 75 (IQR 34-126) days after a positive COVID-19 test. Median monitoring duration was 13.2 (IQR 10.5-13.8) days. No participant demonstrated atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, sustained supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), sustained ventricular tachycardia or infranodal atrioventricular block. Nearly all participants (96%) had an ectopic burden of <1%; one participant had a 2.8% supraventricular ectopic burden and one had a 15.4% ventricular ectopic burden. While 47 (92%) participants triggered their monitor for palpitation symptoms, 78% of these triggers were for either sinus rhythm or sinus tachycardia. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence of malignant or sustained arrhythmias in outpatients after a positive COVID-19 diagnosis. While palpitations were common, symptoms frequently corresponded to sinus rhythm/sinus tachycardia or non-malignant arrhythmias such as isolated ectopy or non-sustained SVT. While these findings cannot exclude the possibility of serious arrhythmias in select individuals, they do not support a strong or widespread proarrhythmic effect of COVID-19 infection after resolution of acute illness.

How Has the Pandemic Affected Women in Medicine? A Survey-Based Study on Perceptions of Personal and Career Impacts of COVID-19.

Background: Gender inequity is apparent for women in medicine. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are concerns about how women physicians are personally and professionally impacted. Materials and Methods: Participants of the Women in Medicine Summit were anonymously surveyed about their perspectives about COVID-19 affecting women in medicine. Questions were centered around perceived gender bias, productivity expectations, and stressors. Results: At the Women in Medicine Summit, 454 attendees were invited to complete the survey with a response rate of 27% (n = 124). Of those participants, 46% of participants perceived gender bias in the workplace, with 39% citing further inequities with intersectional identities (p < 0.05). Productivity expectations were reported to be higher than before the pandemic in 41% of survey participants. The majority of respondents (70%) reported experiencing high levels of stress during the pandemic, compared with only 16% reporting high levels of stress before the pandemic (p < 0.05). Discussion: It is clear that women physicians are experiencing the pandemic differently. Gender bias is a common occurrence, especially by individuals with intersectional identities. These stressors are not new to women in medicine, but with the overriding impact of the pandemic, higher expectations for productivity, and increased personal responsibilities, employers should focus on preventing further exacerbations of gender inequity in medicine.

Tips and Traps for Trainees Traversing Social Media.

The spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection across the world accelerated the adoption of social media as the platform of choice for real-time dissemination of medical information. Though this allowed useful clinical anecdotes and links to the latest articles related to COVID-19 to quickly circulate, the broad use of social media also highlighted the power of platforms such as Twitter to spread misinformation. Trainees in medicine have important perspectives to share on social media but may be reluctant to do so for a variety of reasons. There is a need to provide guidance on how to safely engage with social media as well as move the conversation forward in a meaningful way. In this manuscript, we suggest a stepwise approach for trainee social media engagement that integrates the modified Bloom's Taxonomy for social media with Aristotle's principles of rhetoric. This provides trainees with guidance on making ethical, logical, and persuasive cases on social media when creating, consuming, promoting, and discussing content produced by themselves or others.

Zooming into Focus Groups: Strategies for Qualitative Research in the Era of Social Distancing.

Qualitative research methods are important and have become increasingly prominent in medical education and research. The reason is simple: many pressing questions in these fields require qualitative approaches to elicit nuanced insights and additional meaning beyond standard quantitative measurements in surveys or observatons. Among the most common qualitative data collection methods are structured or semistructured in-person interviews and focus groups, in which participants describe their experiences relevant to the research question at hand. In the era of physical and social distancing because of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, little guidance exists for strategies for conducting focus groups or semistructured interviews. Here we describe our experience with, and recommendations for, conducting remote focus groups and/or interviews in the era of social distancing. Specifically, we discuss best practice recommendations for researchers using video teleconferencing programs to continue qualitative research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rapid Design and Implementation of Post-COVID-19 Clinics.

Survivors of COVID-19 are a vulnerable population, with complex needs because of lingering symptoms and complications across multiple organ systems. Those who required hospitalization or intensive care are also at risk for post-hospital syndrome and post-ICU syndromes, with attendant cognitive, psychological, and physical impairments, and high levels of health care utilization. Effective ambulatory care for COVID-19 survivors requires coordination across multiple subspecialties, which can be burdensome if not well coordinated. With growing recognition of these needs, post-COVID-19 clinics are being created across the country. We describe the design and implementation of multidisciplinary post-COVID-19 clinics at two academic health systems, Johns Hopkins and the University of California-San Francisco. We highlight components of the model which should be replicated across sites, while acknowledging opportunities to tailor offerings to the local institutional context. Our goal is to provide a replicable framework for others to create these much-needed care delivery models for survivors of COVID-19.

Virtual Interviews at Graduate Medical Education Training Programs: Determining Evidence-Based Best Practices.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the nation's health care system, including on graduate medical education (GME) training programs. Traditionally, residency and fellowship training program applications involve in-person interviews conducted on-site, with only a minority of programs offering interviews remotely via a virtual platform. However, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is anticipated that most interviews will be conducted virtually for the 2021 application cycle and possibly beyond. Therefore, GME training programs need to prepare for the transition to virtual interviews using evidence-based practices. At the University of California, San Francisco, a multidisciplinary task force was convened to review existing literature about virtual interviews and determine best practices. This article summarizes these findings, first discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the virtual interview format and then providing evidence-based best practices for GME training programs. Specifically, the authors make the following recommendations: develop a detailed plan for the interview process, consider using standardized interview questions, recognize and respond to potential biases that may be amplified with the virtual interview format, prepare your own trainees for virtual interviews, develop electronic materials and virtual social events to approximate the interview day, and collect data about virtual interviews at your own institution. With adequate preparation, the virtual interview experience can be high yield, positive, and equitable for both applicants and GME training programs.