RESUMO
Background COVID-19 has been the worst pandemic of this century, resulting in economic, social, and educational disruptions. Residency training is no exception, with training restrictions delaying the progression and graduation of residents. We sought to utilize simulation modelling to predict the impact on future cohorts in the event of repeated and prolonged movement restrictions due to COVID-19 and future pandemics of a similar nature. Method A Delphi study was conducted to determine key Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-International (ACGME-I) training variables affected by COVID-19. Quantitative resident datasets on these variables were collated and analysed from 2018 to 2021. Using the Vensim® software (Ventana Systems, Inc., Harvard, MA), historical resident data and pandemic progression delays were used to create a novel simulation model to predict future progression delay. Various durations of delay were also programmed into the software to simulate restrictions of varying severity that would impact resident progression. Results Using the model with scenarios simulating varying pandemic length, we found that the estimated average delay for residents in each accredited year ranged from an increase of one month for year 2 residents to more than three months for year 4 residents. Movement restrictions lasting a year would require up to six years before the program returned to a pre-pandemic equilibrium. Conclusion Systems dynamic modelling can be used to predict delays in residency training programs during a pandemic. The impact on the workforce can thus be projected, allowing residency programs to institute mitigating measures to avoid progression delay.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Patients who have an adverse drug reaction are frequently labelled drug allergic without undergoing proper evaluation and confirmatory testing. These drug allergy labels may be inaccurate, leading to unnecessary lifelong avoidance. The aim of this study was to review the patients that underwent drug provocation tests (DPTs) in our centre and examine the usefulness of DPTs in confirming or rejecting a diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study design was a retrospective chart review of all adult patients who underwent drug provocation in the allergy unit at the National University Hospital, Singapore, for single or multiple suspected drug allergies from the period January 2009 to June 2011. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients underwent 123 DPTs (median age 41; interquartile range 28 to 50). Twenty-one patients underwent multiple DPTs. The most common culprit drugs reported were antibiotics (43.9%) of which beta-lactams were implicated in 75.9% of the cases. This was followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) in 15.4%, paracetamol in 7.3% and both NSAIDs and paracetamol in 3.3%. Rash was the most commonly reported symptom (41.5%), followed by angioedema (32.5%), anaphylaxis (9.8%), and other symptoms including respiratory (2.4%), gastrointestinal (0.8%) and others (13.0%). The majority of DPTs were performed to antibiotics (43.9%), NSAIDs (19.5%) and paracetamol (6.5%). DPTs were negative in 93.5% of subjects and positive in 6.5%. Of the 8 positive DPTs, none had a serious reaction, with 5 patients requiring rescue therapy, which comprised solely of oral antihistamines. CONCLUSION: Suspected drug hypersensitivity is common but true drug allergy is rare. DPTs remain the gold standard and should be included as part of an investigative protocol. DPTs are a safe and valuable diagnostic tool in the hands of the experienced clinician.