Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
4.
BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn ; 7(6): 524-527, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1276970

ABSTRACT

Purpose of the study: SARS-CoV-2 has caused healthcare systems globally to reorganise. A pandemic paradox emerged; while clinicians were desperate for information on a new disease, they had less time to find and evaluate the vast volume of publications at times of significant strain on healthcare systems.A multidisciplinary team undertook a weekly literature search capturing all COVID-19 publications. We also monitored free open access medical education (FOAMed) sources for emerging themes. Title and abstract screening pooled the most relevant papers for emergency medicine. Three summary types were created, a 'Top 5 Flash Update', a journal club and a rapid response to emerging FOAMed themes. From these summaries, three modes of dissemination were used: short written summaries, blogs and podcasts. These were amplified through social media. Study design: A retrospective review was conducted assessing the impact of this knowledge dissemination strategy for the period of March to September 2020. Results: In total, 64 687 papers were identified and screened. Of the papers included in the 'Top 5', 28.3% were on epidemiology, 23.6% treatment, 16.7% diagnostics, 12% prognosis, 8.7% pathophysiology with the remaining 10.7% consisting of PPE, public health, well-being and 'other'. We published 37 blogs, 17 podcasts and 18 Top 5 Flash Updates. The blogs were read 138 343 times, the Top 5 Flash Updates 68 610 times and the podcasts had 72 501 listens. Conclusion: A combination of traditional academic and novel social media approaches can address the pandemic paradox clinicians are facing.

5.
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ ; 37(12):834-835, 2020.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-939889

ABSTRACT

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundEntering lockdown on 23rd March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic marked an unprecedented period for healthcare evidence. An exponential increase in published work, pre-prints, guidelines, online information portals and more, has been overwhelming especially when combined with the ever-changing local emergency department responses to COVID-19. Many research projects were either suspended in favour of clinical work or re-routed into pandemic-oriented studies. All the while, the gap between clinical providers and a mountain of information was growing. Our team developed a strategy to deliver the most pertinent evidence to those working in emergency medicine, taking some stress out this aspect of COVID-19 working.Methods/DesignEach week a search was conducted using PubMed of everything produced in the previous 7 days. The number of titles varied from approximately 800 to 2500. A 3 to 5 person team distilled titles and then reviewed abstracts for papers of importance and relevance to emergency medicine. Relevant and high impact journals were individually searched over the same time period. Summaries of the short-listed papers were produced and the weekly editorial team selected 5 for inclusion in the weekly RCEM Top 5 and others were combined for extra reading as part of a 2–3 weekly ‘Director’s Cut’.Results/ConclusionsThe RCEM Top 5 (at time of writing) has been run for 13 weeks. The summaries themselves were accessed by between 3000 and 6000 RCEM members/fellows each week. The work has also fed into online journal clubs and blogs (combined views of over 30,000) and has attracted interest from wider colleagues nationally and internationally to both join and even replicate the approach to other relevant areas. The positive feedback is best summarised in the following quote: ‘when I’m too mentally overcooked to do any reading on my own this helps me feel I am doing some keeping up. Please continue!’

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL