Using virtual reality as a replacement for hospital tours during residency interviews.

BACKGROUND: Residency programs invest a significant amount of time and resources on the recruitment process, and maintaining efficiency and cost-effectiveness are very important. Virtual Reality (VR) has become an adaptive substitute for 'real life' experiences and its use during the interview season could help save time and resources. OBJECTIVE: With the intention to maximize the interview day and provide a cost-effective alternative to facility tours, a Med-Peds residency training program introduced a VR tour of their children's hospital during recruitment. DESIGN: The Med-Peds program replaced an in-person facility tour of the children's hospital with a VR tour. Applicants were asked to complete an anonymous, voluntary survey on their VR experience at the end of the interview season, and rank features of the interview day in order of importance. RESULTS: There were 33 respondents out of 54 interviewees. Approximately two thirds (63-66%) agreed that VR was non-inferior and superior to in-person facility tours, and that the use of VR had a favorable impact on their perception of the program. However, almost 50% of the applicants had some difficulty using VR technology. CONCLUSION: Use of VR facility tours as an alternative to in-person tours of affiliate training facilities during a residency interview day is a viable and innovative option that can save time and money and favorably impact the applicant's impression of the program. More research is necessary to assess whether VR tours can replace in-person tours at the main teaching site, however, while social distancing measures are in place, VR tours may become necessary for programs moving forward. ABBREVIATIONS: Med-Peds: Internal Medicine-Pediatrics; VR: Virtual Reality; AAMC: Association of American Medical Colleges; IRB: Institutional Review Board.

Matched Cohort Study of Convalescent COVID-19 Plasma Treatment in Severely or Life Threateningly Ill COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The utility of convalescent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) plasma (CCP) in the current pandemic is not well defined. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CCP in severely or life threateningly ill COVID-19 patients when matched with a contemporaneous cohort. METHODS: Patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 were treated with CCP according to Food and Drug Administration criteria, prioritization by an interdisciplinary team, and based on CCP availability. Individual-level matched controls (1:1) were identified from patients admitted during the prior month when no CCP was available. The safety outcome was freedom from adverse transfusion reaction, and the efficacy outcome was a composite of death or worsening O2 support. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were analyzed by univariate and multivariable regression analyses accounting for matched design. RESULTS: Study patients (n = 94, 47 matched pairs) were 62% male with a mean age of 58, and 98% (90/94) were minorities (53% Hispanic, 45% Black, non-Hispanic) in our inner-city population. Seven-day composite and mortality outcomes suggested a nonsignificant benefit in CCP-treated patients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.23-2.12; P = .52; aHR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.04-1.51; P = .13, respectively). Stratification by pretransfusion mechanical ventilation status showed no differences between groups. No serious transfusion reactions occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term matched cohort study, transfusion with CCP was safe and showed a nonsignificant association with study outcomes. Randomized and larger trials to identify appropriate timing and dosing of CCP in COVID-19 are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04420988.