RESUMEN
Purpose: The exponential use of handheld electronic devices (HEDs) among healthcare providers has shown the potential to enhance clinical workflows and improve patient care. However, the challenges and risks of carrying these devices during ward rounds and their impact on postgraduate trainees' (PGTs') training in general and more specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic need to be explored. Methods: A cross-sectional mixed-methods online survey was conducted to evaluate the perceptions of trainees and faculty at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education International accredited residency and fellowships programs in Qatar on the use of HEDs on clinical workflow, trainees' education, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. One hundred and fifty-eight participants were enrolled in the study (87 postgraduate trainees and 71 faculty). Exploratory data analysis and descriptive statistics were performed using STATA version 12 and thematic analysis of 301 qualitative responses to the survey open-ended questions using Atlas. ti qualitative software, version 9.4.0. Results: Almost all PGTs, 83 (95.4%), and faculty 43 (62.3%) use HEDs during ward rounds. Accessibility of patient information by PGTs 73 (94.8%) and faculty 46 (84.4%) and work efficiency were the main perceived benefits. Hindering communication between team members, disruption of interaction with patients, increased risk of infection and breach of patient confidentiality were among the challenges associated with their use. Carrying devices reduced the frequency of hand hygiene practices and physical examinations of patients by trainees. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the use of HEDs by both faculty [38(64%)] and PGTs [42(60%)]. Conclusion: HEDs' use is valued by both faculty and PGTs in enhancing workflow, trainees' education, patient experience, and patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Graduate medical education leaders should adopt measures to monitor their use during ward rounds as they can negatively impact trainees' education, reduce interaction with patients, increase the risk of infection, and breach patient confidentiality.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Drug induced liver injury (DILI) is a rising morbidity amongst patients with COVID-19 clinical syndrome. The updated RUCAM causality assessment scale is validated for use in the general population, but its utility for causality determination in cohorts of patients with COVID-19 and DILI remains uncertain. METHODS: This retrospective study was comprised of COVID-19 patients presenting with suspected DILI to the emergency department of Weill Cornell medicine-affiliated Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar. All cases that met the inclusion criteria were comparatively adjudicated by two independent rating pairs (2 clinical pharmacist and 2 physicians) utilizing the updated RUCAM scale to assess the likelihood of DILI. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients (mean age 48.96 (SD ± 10.21) years) were examined for the determination of DILI causality. The majority had probability likelihood of "possible" or "probable" by the updated RUCAM scale. Azithromycin was the most commonly reported drug as a cause of DILI. The median R-ratio was 4.74 which correspond to a mixed liver injury phenotype. The overall Krippendorf's kappa was 0.52; with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.79 (IQR 0.72-0.85). The proportion of exact pairwise agreement and disagreement between the rating pairs were 64.4%, kappa 0.269 (ICC 0.28 [0.18, 0.40]) and kappa 0.45 (ICC 0.43 [0.29-0.57]), respectively. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of patients with COVID-19 clinical syndrome, we found the updated RUCAM scale to be useful in establishing "possible" or "probable" DILI likelihood as evident by the respective kappa values; this results if validated by larger sample sized studies will extend the clinical application of this universal tool for adjudication of DILI.