Early Welsh cervical screening programme learning as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic has had a profound impact on the cervical screening programme in Wales for the eligible women, sample takers, and laboratory and colposcopy services. AIMS: To explore what changes due to the pandemic have adversely affected screening outcomes in Wales and what lessons can be learned to improve cervical screening in Wales and elsewhere. METHODS: A review of the screening performance in 2020 and the first quarter of 2021 in Wales as well as a comparison with other cervical screening programme responses to the pandemic. RESULTS: A 3 month pause of screening together with a change in a variety of working practices, including social distancing, use of personal protective equipment, use of virtual meetings, and home working have been implemented. The combination of a pause to the issuing of invitations, plus reduced services in primary and secondary care, together with population lockdown, have contributed to longer waiting times for colposcopy and potentially delayed cancer diagnoses. Some programme changes which were being evaluated prior to the pandemic could be developed now to mitigate the impact of the pandemic such as improved information, increased screening intervals for human papillomavirus-based screening programmes, and home working for call and recall staff. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a considerable short-term interruption to the cervical screening programme, some changes introduced as a result of the coronavirus pandemic could provide key lessons learnt for improvement for cervical cancer prevention services.

Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncology Residency Training in India and a Novel Online Academic Solution: Results of an Online Survey.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a global effect on the training of residents of medicine because of what has been required in the pandemic. The field of oncology has not been spared, as prepandemic training schedules have not been available for residents. We conducted an online survey to understand the effect of the pandemic and the effect of online teaching schedules as a measure to help residents of oncology in their training. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An online survey consisting of 31 questions was sent through various social media platforms based on the training pattern before the onset of COVID-19, effect of the pandemic on educational activities, and the effect of online academic activities on residency training and learning. The survey addressed the need for online academics as an alternate mode of teaching. The survey was left open for a period of 4 weeks with participation requests from the various branches of oncology, including radiation, surgical and medical oncology, onco-anesthesia, palliative oncology, neuro-oncology, and so forth. The frequencies obtained in the survey were analyzed using descriptive statistical analyses. RESULTS: After a 4-week period, there were 255 responses received from students of oncology from various specialties. Around 69.8.1% of respondents (n = 178) were junior residents, followed by senior residents (n = 72; 28.2%). The majority of the respondents were radiation oncologists (n = 204; 80%). Around 70.9% had an ongoing structured teaching program related to oncology training, with the majority (40.3%) of them having more than 3 hours every week of oncology-based training. Another 31.3% reported having 1 to 2 hours of such training every week, and 60.8% of participants agreed their training was affected by pandemic and related safety regulations. Most students (90.9%) found the online teaching sessions helped maintain training qualities as they were in the pre-COVID times. About 69.1% of the students felt that the quality of these online sessions was better compared with the institute-based onsite classroom teaching. However, as is expected, 77.6% of them agreed that their hands-on training was affected in the pandemic. When asked if online teaching can replace every aspect of classroom teaching, 66.7% of respondents did not agree. The majority (83.9%) felt that students should be given the opportunity to present a given topic under the supervision of a senior faculty member experienced and expert in that topic. The students pointed out the lack of practical exposure as the most common deficiency, followed by the lack of direct interaction with the teaching faculty. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has limited the access to essential training in the branches of oncology, and though online sessions cannot replace the hands-on training and clinical exposure needed for the students, online academics and webinars have proven to be an effective tool to minimize that effect and can lead to a positive outcome, as shown by the survey. A combination of online and onsite training modules may be the future of teaching and training in our country.