Humans not heroes: Canadian emergency physician experiences during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic has upended much clinical care, irrevocably changing our health systems and thrusting emergency physicians into a time of great uncertainty and change. This study is a follow-up to a survey that examined the early pandemic experience among Canadian emergency physicians and aimed to qualitatively describe the experiences of these physicians during the global pandemic. The study was conducted at a time when Canadian COVID-19 case numbers were low. METHODS: The investigators engaged in an interview-based study that used an interpretive description analytic technique, sensitised by the principles of phenomenology. One-to-one interviews were conducted, transcribed and then analysed to establish a codebook, which was subsequently grouped into key themes. Results underwent source triangulation (with survey data from a similar period) and investigator-driven audit trail analysis. RESULTS: A total of 16 interviews (11 female, 5 male) were conducted between May and September 2020. The isolated themes on emergency physicians' experiences during the early pandemic included: (1) disruption and loss of emergency department shift work; (2) stress of COVID-19 uncertainty and information bombardment; (3) increased team bonding; (4) greater personal life stress; (5) concern for patients' isolation, miscommunication and disconnection from care; (6) emotional distress. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian emergency physicians experienced emotional and psychological distress during the early COVID-19 pandemic, at a time when COVID-19 prevalence was low. This study's findings could guide future interventions to protect emergency physicians against pandemic-related distress.

Examining Reliability and Validity of an Online Score (ALiEM AIR) for Rating Free Open Access Medical Education Resources.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Since 2014, Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) has used the Approved Instructional Resources (AIR) score to critically appraise online content. The primary goals of this study are to determine the interrater reliability (IRR) of the ALiEM AIR rating score and determine its correlation with expert educator gestalt. We also determine the minimum number of educator-raters needed to achieve acceptable reliability. METHODS: Eight educators each rated 83 online educational posts with the ALiEM AIR scale. Items include accuracy, usage of evidence-based medicine, referencing, utility, and the Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine rating score. A generalizability study was conducted to determine IRR and rating variance contributions of facets such as rater, blogs, posts, and topic. A randomized selection of 40 blog posts previously rated through ALiEM AIR was then rated again by a blinded group of expert medical educators according to their gestalt. Their gestalt impression was subsequently correlated with the ALiEM AIR score. RESULTS: The IRR for the ALiEM AIR rating scale was 0.81 during the 6-month pilot period. Decision studies showed that at least 9 raters were required to achieve this reliability. Spearman correlations between mean AIR score and the mean expert gestalt ratings were 0.40 for recommendation for learners and 0.35 for their colleagues. CONCLUSION: The ALiEM AIR scale is a moderately to highly reliable, 5-question tool when used by medical educators for rating online resources. The score displays a fair correlation with expert educator gestalt in regard to the quality of the resources. The score displays a fair correlation with educator gestalt.