Medical Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

All aspects of medical education were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Several challenges were experienced by trainees and programs alike, including economic repercussions of the pandemic; social distancing affecting the delivery of medical education, testing, and interviewing; the surge of patients affecting redeployment of personnel and potential compromises in core training; and the overall impact on the wellness and mental health of trainees and educators. The ability of medical teams and researchers to peer review, conduct clinical research, and keep up with literature was similarly challenged by the rapid growth in peer-reviewed and preprint literature. This article reviews these challenges and shares strategies that institutions, educators, and learners adopted, adapted, and developed to provide quality education during these unprecedented times.

Improving Diagnostic Fidelity: An Approach to Standardizing the Process in Patients With Emerging Critical Illness.

OBJECTIVE: To reliably improve diagnostic fidelity and identify delays using a standardized approach applied to the electronic medical records of patients with emerging critical illness. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, conducted June 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, used a standard operating procedure applied to electronic medical records to identify variations in diagnostic fidelity and/or delay in adult patients with a rapid response team evaluation, at risk for critical illness. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified predictors and compared outcomes for those with and without varying diagnostic fidelity and/or delay. RESULTS: The sample included 130 patients. Median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-76 years), and 47.0% (52 of 130) were women. Clinically significant diagnostic error or delay was agreed in 23 (17.7%) patients (κ=0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.74). Median age was 65.4 years (interquartile range, 60.3-74.8) and 9 of the 23 (30.1%) were female. Of those with diagnostic error or delay, 60.9% (14 of 23) died in the hospital compared with 19.6% (21 of 107) without; P<.001. Diagnostic error or delay was associated with higher Charlson comorbidity index score, cardiac arrest triage score, and do not intubate/do not resuscitate status. Adjusting for age, do not intubate/do not resuscitate status, and Charlson comorbidity index score, diagnostic error or delay was associated with increased mortality; odds ratio, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.0-17.8. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic errors or delays can be reliably identified and are associated with higher comorbidity burden and increased mortality.