Risk of adverse outcome of COVID-19 among patients in secure psychiatric services: observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Secure forensic mental health services treat patients with high rates of treatment-resistant psychoses. High rates of obesity and medical comorbidities are common. Population-based studies have identified high-risk groups in the event of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including those with problems such as obesity, lung disease and immune-compromising conditions. Structured assessment tools exist to ascertain the risk of adverse outcome in the event of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AIMS: To assess risk of adverse outcome in the event of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a complete population of forensic psychiatry patients using structured assessment tools. METHOD: All patients of a national forensic mental health service (n = 141) were rated for risk of adverse outcome in the event of SARS-CoV-2 infection, using two structured tools, the COVID-Age tool and the COVID-Risk tool. RESULTS: We found high rates of relevant physical comorbidities. Mean chronological age was 45.5 years (s.d. = 11.4, median 44.1), mean score on the COVID-Age tool was 59.1 years (s.d. = 19.4, median 58.0), mean difference was 13.6 years (s.d. = 15.6), paired t = 10.9, d.f. = 140, P < 0.001. Three patients (2.1%) were chronologically over 70 years of age, compared with 43 (30.5%) with a COVID-Age over 70 (χ2 = 6.99, d.f. = 1, P = 0.008, Fisher's exact test P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in secure forensic psychiatric services represent a high-risk group for adverse outcomes in the event of SARS-COV-2 infection. Population-based guidance on self-isolation and other precautions based on chronological age may not be sufficient. There is an urgent need for better physical health research and treatment in this group.

Evaluation of medical student retention of clinical skills following simulation training.

BACKGROUND: Adequate clinical skills training is a challenge for present day medical education. Simulation Based Education (SBE) is playing an increasingly important role in healthcare education worldwide to teach invasive procedures. The impact of this teaching on students along with retention of what is taught is not fully understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention levels of practical skills taught and assessed by SBE and to explore the degree of re-training required to restore decayed performance. In exploring this aim, the study further investigates how skilled performance decays over time and which dimensions of clinical skills were more likely to decay. METHODS: Study participants were 51 final year medical students. They were provided with online pre-course videos and procedural guides asynchronously with repeatedly access. 7 of the skills taught over 2 years using task trainers were selected. Following demonstration from faculty, students practiced in small groups with faculty facilitated supervision and peer support prior to formal testing. Score sheets with itemised procedure checklists detailing the minimum passing standard (MPS) for each skill were designed. To test retention of skills, 18 months later, there was an unannounced test to demonstrate proficiency in the skills. Students were asked to complete a questionnaire indicating how many times and where they had practiced or performed the skills. RESULTS: 55% of the students were deficient in 3 or more skills and 4% were not competent in 5 or more skills. A significant number of students had never practiced some skills following the initial teaching session. A relationship was noted with the number of times students self-declared that they had practiced and their performance. Decay is evident in both psychomotor and cognitive domains of the skills. CONCLUSION: A curriculum with deliberate practice significantly increases the competence of students in defined clinical skills. Deliberate practice of clinical skills, under supervision of an engaged instructor, is a key component of the mastery model. Experiences and assessments in the clinical setting need to be augmented with focus on direct observation and focused feedback to reinforce the skills acquired in the simulated setting.

How good are doctors at introducing themselves? #hellomynameis.

BACKGROUND: This explorative study was triggered by the '#hellomynameis' campaign initiated by Dr Kate Granger in the UK. Our objectives were twofold: first, to measure rates of introduction in an Irish hospital setting by both consultant and non-consultant hospital doctors. Second to establish whether such practices were associated with patient perceptions of the doctor/patient interaction. METHOD: A patient 'exit' survey was undertaken following doctor-patient consultations in both acute (surgical and medical assessment units) and elective settings (outpatient clinics). The survey was carried out over a 5-month period by three trained clinical observers. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients were surveyed. There were 253 outpatients and 100 inpatients surveyed. There were 121 outpatients (47.8%) who attended a surgeon, 73 were medical (28.8%), while 59 (23.3%) were divided between obstetrics, gynaecology and ophthalmology. One hundred acute presentations were surveyed: 52% in the emergency department, 20% to the acute medical assessment unit, 21% attended the acute surgical assessment unit and 7% attended other specialties/departments. CONCLUSION: According to the returned forms, 79% of doctors (n=279) introduced themselves to patients. Eleven per cent (39) of doctors did not introduce themselves, and 8.5% of patients (30) were unsure whether the doctor had introduced themselves. Five patients left their response blank.Consultants were significantly more likely (P=0.02) to introduce themselves or shake hands than non-consultant hospital doctors. Gender had no bearing (P=0.43) on introductions or handshakes regardless of grade of doctor.Three hundred and seventeen patients (89.7%) felt that an introduction had made a positive difference to their healthcare visit. Thirty patients (8.5%) felt it did not make a difference and 8 patients (2.2%) were unsure or failed to answer.This study has highlighted the importance of introductions to patients. Definite evidence of an introduction was documented in 79% of patients with 14.5% either not receiving or could not recall whether an introduction had been made on repeat visits. 6.5% stated that they did not receive an introduction.