Online Liver Imaging Course; Pivoting to Transform Radiology Education During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has drastically disrupted radiology in-person education. The purpose of this study was to assess the implementation of a virtual teaching method using available technology and its role in the continuity of education of practicing radiologists and trainees during the pandemic. METHODS: The authors created the Online Liver Imaging Course (OLIC) that comprised 28 online comprehensive lectures delivered in real-time and on-demand over six weeks. Radiologists and radiology trainees were asked to register to attend the live sessions. At the end of the course, we conducted a 46-question survey among registrants addressing their training level, perception of virtual conferencing, and evaluation of the course content. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and thirty four radiologists and trainees completed interest sign up forms before the start of the course with the first webinar having the highest number of live attendees (343 people). On average, there were 89 live participants per session and 750 YouTube views per recording (as of July 9, 2020). After the end of the course, 487 attendees from 37 countries responded to the postcourse survey for an overall response rate of (33%). Approximately (63%) of participants were practicing radiologists while (37%) were either fellows or residents and rarely medical students. The overwhelming majority (97%) found the OLIC webinar series to be beneficial. Essentially all attendees felt that the webinar sessions met (43%) or exceeded (57%) their expectations. When asked about their perception of virtual conferences after attending OLIC lectures, almost all attendees (99%) enjoyed the virtual conference with a majority (61%) of the respondents who enjoyed the virtual format more than in-person conferences, while (38%) enjoyed the webinar format but preferred in-person conferences. When asked about the willingness to attend virtual webinars in the future, (84%) said that they would attend future virtual conferences even if in-person conferences resume while (15%) were unsure. CONCLUSION: The success of the OLIC, attributed to many factors, indicates that videoconferencing technology provides an inexpensive alternative to in-person radiology conferences. The positive responses to our postcourse survey suggest that virtual education will remain to stay. Educational institutions and scientific societies should foster such models.

Evaluating trauma team performance in a Level I trauma center: Validation of the trauma team communication assessment (TTCA-24).

BACKGROUND: Nontechnical skills (NTS), such as team communication, are well-recognized determinants of trauma team performance and good patient care. Measuring these competencies during trauma resuscitations is essential, yet few valid and reliable tools are available. We aimed to demonstrate that the Trauma Team Communication Assessment (TTCA-24) is a valid and reliable instrument that measures communication effectiveness during activations. METHODS: Two tools with adequate psychometric strength (Trauma Nontechnical Skills Scale [T-NOTECHS], Team Emergency Assessment Measure [TEAM]) were identified during a systematic review of medical literature and compared with TTCA-24. Three coders used each tool to evaluate 35 stable and 35 unstable patient activations (defined according to Advanced Trauma Life Support criteria). Interrater reliability was calculated between coders using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to establish concurrent validity between TTCA-24 and the other two validated tools. RESULTS: Coders achieved an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.87 for stable patient activations and 0.78 for unstable activations scoring excellent on the interrater agreement guidelines. The median score for each assessment showed good team communication for all 70 videos (TEAM, 39.8 of 54; T-NOTECHS, 17.4 of 25; and TTCA-24, 87.4 of 96). A significant correlation between TTTC-24 and T-NOTECHS was revealed (p = 0.029), but no significant correlation between TTCA-24 and TEAM (p = 0.77). Team communication was rated slightly better across all assessments for stable versus unstable patient activations, but not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: TTCA-24 correlated with T-NOTECHS, an instrument measuring nontechnical skills for trauma teams, but not TEAM, a tool that assesses communication in generic emergency settings. TTCA-24 is a reliable and valid assessment that can be a useful adjunct when evaluating interpersonal and team communication during trauma activations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic tests or criteria, level II.

Tools for Assessment of Communication Skills of Hospital Action Teams: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Hospital action teams comprise interdisciplinary health care providers working simultaneously to treat critically ill patients. Assessments designed to evaluate communication effectiveness or "nontechnical" performance of these teams are essential to minimize medical errors and improve team productivity. Although multiple communication tools are available, the characteristics and psychometric validity of these instruments have yet to be systematically compared. OBJECTIVE: To identify assessments used to evaluate the communication or "nontechnical" performance of hospital action teams and summarize evidence to develop and validate these instruments. METHOD: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed database to identify original articles related to assessment of communication skills in teams working in acute care medicine not exclusive to emergency room, operating room, prehospital air and ground transport, or code blue/rapid response resuscitations. RESULTS: Ten communication assessment tools were identified. Six tools (60%) were designed to measure communication performance of the whole team, whereas 4 tools (40%) were created to assess individual team member's communication skills. Regardless of the type of analysis, the most commonly assessed behavior domains were Leadership, Teamwork, Communication, and Situation awareness. Only 1 of 16 articles describing a particular communication assessment tool reported all the validation criteria, other authors underreported efforts to validate their instruments. CONCLUSION: A number of tools designed to measure the communication or "nontechnical" performance of hospital action teams are available. Unfortunately, limited reported validity evidence may hamper the utility of these tools in actual clinical practice until further validation studies are performed.