RESUMO
The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant threat to US healthcare workers' mental and physical health. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the first mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for Emergency Use Authorization on December 11, 2020. High-risk healthcare workers were determined to be Phase 1a. Goal: Complete the two-dose vaccine series in all interested phase 1a staff immediately after the COVID-19 vaccine was available and distributed to our institution, December 14, 2020. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team involving key stakeholders performed process mapping to develop four key drivers for vaccination success: rapid vaccine procurement, proper storage and handling, well-defined vaccine administration and follow-up plan, and system preparation. We tested interventions using plan-do-study-act cycles. We included employees and providers with direct patient care responsibilities, age 18 years or older, employed at the children's health system, or the affiliated academic medical center. We examined the total number of dose 1 and dose 2 vaccines administered for our primary outcome, and the balancing measure included the percent of wasted vaccines. RESULTS: Three thousand nine-hundred twenty-one healthcare personnel completed the survey, and 73% reported intent to receive the COVID-19 vaccine immediately or at a later time. After 57 clinic days, we vaccinated 83% (n = 5,231) of healthcare personnel at our institution, and 99% completed the two-dose series. Due to surplus vaccines, we vaccinated an additional 1,258 community members with 99% completion of the two-dose series. Vaccine waste was minimal 0.1%. CONCLUSION: We describe the development and implementation of a successful COVID-19 employee and community vaccination program.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: A key question in simulation-based education is how to maximize learning within time and resource limits, including how best to balance hands-on practice versus reflective debriefing. Several instructional design frameworks suggest setting the balance according to the type of learning objective(s); however, broad professional activities such as team-based cardiopulmonary resuscitation include several interrelated component skills. This study experimentally manipulated hands-on practice versus reflective debriefing for cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills, hypothesizing that the former best supports learning taskwork (eg, compression quality), whereas the latter best supports learning teamwork. METHODS: The study was a randomized comparison trial with a pretest and posttest. Twenty-six teams of 5 to 6 first-year residents underwent either "drill" practice of key resuscitation phases, designed to maximize deliberate practice opportunities for individual and team skills, or "scrimmage" practice, designed to maximize full-scenario rehearsals and reflective debriefs. Key taskwork and teamwork behaviors were coded, and compression quality was collected and analyzed from an accelerometer. RESULTS: Most performance parameters improved considerably from a pretest to posttest for both taskwork (eg, percent correct compression depth 62%-81%, P = 0.01) and teamwork (eg, role leadership, 47%-70%, P = 0.00). Only 2 parameters improved differently by condition, favoring "drill" training: checking "Do Not Actively Resuscitate" wristband (odds ratio = 14.75, P = 0.03) and use of compression adjuncts (estimated marginal means = 75% versus 67%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the notion that component skills in resuscitation do not clearly and exclusively constitute "taskwork" versus "teamwork," both instructional designs led to similar improvements despite differences in the balance between hands-on practice versus reflection.