Outcomes in quality improvement and patient safety training: moving from in-person to synchronous distance education.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated increased synchronous distance education (SDE) in graduate medical education, presenting challenges for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (QIPS) best practices, which call for integration with daily clinical care and investigation of real patient safety events. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate educational outcomes for QIPS training after conversion of a mature, in-person curriculum to SDE. METHODS: 68 postgraduate year (PGY)-1 residents were surveyed before and after the SDE Culture of Patient Safety training in June 2020, and 59 PGY-2s were administered the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool-Revised (QIKAT-R) before and after the SDE QIPS seminar series in July-August 2020. Values before and after training were compared using sign tests for matched pairs (PGY-1) and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (PGY-2). RESULTS: 100% (68 of 68) of PGY-1s and 46% (27 of 59) of PGY-2s completed precourse and postcourse surveys. Before the course, 55 PGY-1s (81%) strongly agreed that submitting patient safety event reports are a physician's responsibility, and 63 (93%) did so after (15% increase, p=0.004). For PGY-2s, the median composite QIKAT-R score was 17 (IQR 14.5-20) before and 22.5 (IQR 20-24.5) after the seminars, with a median difference of 4.5 (IQR 1.5-7), a 32% increase in QIPS competency (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety attitudes and quality improvement knowledge increased after SDE QIPS training at comparable levels to previously published results for in-person training, supporting SDE use in future hybrid curricula to optimise educational value and reach.

Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Virtual Morning Report: a Multicenter Survey.

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted graduate medical education, compelling training programs to abruptly transition to virtual educational formats despite minimal experience or proficiency. We surveyed residents from a national sample of internal medicine (IM) residency programs to describe their experiences with the transition to virtual morning report (MR), a highly valued core educational conference. OBJECTIVE: Assess resident views about virtual MR content and teaching strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Anonymous, web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Residents from 14 academically affiliated IM residency programs. MAIN MEASURES: The 25-item survey on virtual MR included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend and teach; how the virtual format affects the learning environment; how virtual MR compares to in-person MR with regard to participation, engagement, and overall education; and whether virtual MR should continue after in-person conferences can safely resume. The survey included a combination of Likert-style, multiple option, and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Six hundred fifteen residents (35%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of interns (39%), second-year (31%), and third-year (30%) residents. When comparing their overall assessment of in-person and virtual MR formats, 42% of residents preferred in-person, 18% preferred virtual, and 40% felt they were equivalent. Most respondents endorsed better peer-engagement, camaraderie, and group participation with in-person MR. Chat boxes, video participation, audience response systems, and smart boards/tablets enhanced respondents' educational experience during virtual MR. Most respondents (72%) felt that the option of virtual MR should continue when it is safe to resume in-person conferences. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual MR was a valued alternative to traditional in-person MR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Residents feel that the virtual platform offers unique educational benefits independent of and in conjunction with in-person conferences. Residents support the integration of a virtual platform into the delivery of MR in the future.

Just-In-Time Tools for Training Non-Critical Care Providers. Troubleshooting Problems in the Ventilated Patient.

Due to the limited number of critical care providers in the United States, even well-staffed hospitals are at risk of exhausting both physical and human resources during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). One potential response to this problem is redeployment of non-critical care providers to increase the supply of available clinicians. To support efforts to increase capacity as part of surge preparation for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, we created an online educational resource for non-intensivist providers to learn basic critical care content. Among those materials, we created a series of one-page learning guides for the management of common problems encountered in the intensive care unit (ICU). These guides were meant to be used as just-in-time tools to guide problem-solving during the provision of ICU care. This article presents five guides related to managing complications that can arise in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

Just-In-Time Tools for Training Non-Critical Care Providers. Basics of Respiratory Failure.

Due to the limited number of critical care providers in the United States, even well-staffed hospitals are at risk of exhausting both physical and human resources during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). One potential response to this problem is redeployment of non-critical care providers to increase the supply of available clinicians. To support efforts to increase capacity as part of surge preparation for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, we created an online educational resource for nonintensivist providers to learn basic critical care content. Among those materials, we created a series of one-page learning guides for the management of common problems encountered in the intensive care unit (ICU). These guides were meant to be used as just-in-time tools to guide problem-solving during the provision of ICU care. This article presents five guides related to the evaluation and management of patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and the basics of invasive mechanical ventilation.

Risk and Protective Factors in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Evidence Map.

Background: Given the worldwide spread of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), there is an urgent need to identify risk and protective factors and expose areas of insufficient understanding. Emerging tools, such as the Rapid Evidence Map (rEM), are being developed to systematically characterize large collections of scientific literature. We sought to generate an rEM of risk and protective factors to comprehensively inform areas that impact COVID-19 outcomes for different sub-populations in order to better protect the public. Methods: We developed a protocol that includes a study goal, study questions, a PECO statement, and a process for screening literature by combining semi-automated machine learning with the expertise of our review team. We applied this protocol to reports within the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) that were published in early 2020. SWIFT-Active Screener was used to prioritize records according to pre-defined inclusion criteria. Relevant studies were categorized by risk and protective status; susceptibility category (Behavioral, Physiological, Demographic, and Environmental); and affected sub-populations. Using tagged studies, we created an rEM for COVID-19 susceptibility that reveals: (1) current lines of evidence; (2) knowledge gaps; and (3) areas that may benefit from systematic review. Results: We imported 4,330 titles and abstracts from CORD-19. After screening 3,521 of these to achieve 99% estimated recall, 217 relevant studies were identified. Most included studies concerned the impact of underlying comorbidities (Physiological); age and gender (Demographic); and social factors (Environmental) on COVID-19 outcomes. Among the relevant studies, older males with comorbidities were commonly reported to have the poorest outcomes. We noted a paucity of COVID-19 studies among children and susceptible sub-groups, including pregnant women, racial minorities, refugees/migrants, and healthcare workers, with few studies examining protective factors. Conclusion: Using rEM analysis, we synthesized the recent body of evidence related to COVID-19 risk and protective factors. The results provide a comprehensive tool for rapidly elucidating COVID-19 susceptibility patterns and identifying resource-rich/resource-poor areas of research that may benefit from future investigation as the pandemic evolves.