A Comparative Survey Study of In-Person Versus Virtual Trauma Peer Review Meetings.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma mandates regular peer review meetings for verified trauma centers. The COVID-19 pandemic forced in-person meetings to transition to an online platform. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the opinions of participants regarding the benefits and negative aspects of the virtual peer review process. We hypothesize that physicians and nurses would prefer a virtual meeting format. METHODS: An anonymous online survey of members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the Society of Trauma Nurses was distributed in May and June of 2021. Demographic data and Likert scale-based responses were collected using the Research Electronic Data Capture platform. RESULTS: Invitations were sent to 1,726 physicians and 2,912 nurses. In total, 137 (8%) physicians and 141 (5%) nurses completed the survey. Both groups felt that either platform was effective in addressing opportunities for improvement in care. Physicians disagreed with the statement that anonymous online voting improved their ability to more accurately address opportunities for improvement. In total, 108 (79%) physicians and 100 (71%) nurses preferred a hybrid meeting. Only 18 (13%) physicians and 23 (16%) nurses wanted virtual meetings, whereas only 29 (21%) physicians and 36 (26%) nurses wanted in-person meetings going forward. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual and in-person trauma peer review meetings are equally effective in terms of case discussion and identifying opportunities for improvement in care. Given that most people preferred a hybrid meeting, future studies evaluating how best to incorporate and implement this format are needed.

Survey of surgical critical care applicant and program director views on virtual interviews for fellowship training: a Surgical Critical Care Program Directors Society sponsored study.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced postgraduate interview processes to move to a virtual platform. There are no studies on the opinions of faculty and applicants regarding this format. The aim of this study was to assess the opinions of surgical critical care (SCC) applicants and program directors regarding the virtual versus in-person interview process. Methods: An anonymous survey of the SCC Program Director's Society members and applicants to the 2019 (in-person) and 2020 (virtual) interview cycles was done. Demographic data and Likert scale based responses were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture. Results: Fellowship and program director responses rates were 25% (137/550) and 58% (83/143), respectively. Applicants in the 2020 application cycle attended more interviews. The majority of applicants (57%) and program faculty (67%) strongly liked/liked the virtual interview format but felt an in-person format allows better assessment of the curriculum and culture of the program. Both groups felt that an in-person format allows applicants and faculty to establish rapport better. Only 9% and 16% of SCC program directors wanted a purely virtual or purely in-person interview process, respectively. Applicants were nearly evenly split between preferring a purely in-person versus virtual interviews in the future. Discussion: The virtual interview format allows applicants and program directors to screen a larger number of programs and applications. However, the virtual format is less useful than an in-person interview format for describing unique aspects of a training program and for allowing faculty and applicants to establish rapport. Future strategies using both formats may be optimal, but such an approach requires further study. Level of evidence: Epidemiologic level IV.

Interhospital Transfer of Critically Ill Patients Because of Coronavirus Disease 19-Related Respiratory Failure.

OBJECTIVE: Interfacility transfer of patients with coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory failure is high risk because of the severity of respiratory failure and potential for crew exposure. This article describes a hospital-based transport team's experience with interfacility transport of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients. METHODS: A retrospective study of transports for respiratory failure caused by SARS-CoV-2 was performed. All transports were performed by a single critical care transport team. The team was already trained in advanced mechanical ventilation, blood gas interpretation, and management of shock. Guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was followed regarding the use of personal protective equipment. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled. The average patient age was 47 years (standard deviation [SD] = 12 years). The average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 10 (SD = 4) and 24 (SD = 7), respectively. The average transport distance and time were 18 miles (SD = 9 miles) and 25 minutes (SD = 11 minutes), respectively. Nineteen patients were intubated, 9 of whom required advanced ventilation. Two patients were transported prone. One patient experienced unintentional extubation upon transfer from the stretcher to the destination facility bed. The patient was reintubated without event. No crewmembers contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSION: Interfacility transfer of severely ill SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is safe and feasible.