Impact of junior doctor strikes on patient flow in the emergency department: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Healthcare worker strikes are a global phenomenon. Mortality and morbidity seem to be unaffected by doctor strikes, but there is little evidence on the impact on emergency department (ED) flow and patient characteristics. In March and April 2023, two consecutive UK junior doctor strikes occurred. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the impact of junior doctor strikes on ED patient flow. Additionally, variation in patient presentations was compared between non-strike and strike days. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at King's College Hospital ED, a university hospital in London. All ED attendances during the 72- and 96-hour strike actions were compared with the corresponding non-strike days of the previous week. OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: National key performance indicators (KPIs) were analysed and compared between non-strike and strike days. Patients' demographics, acuity and diagnoses were compared. Outcome measures included number of 4-hour breaches, number of patients admitted or discharged and ED mortality. Staff seniority was categorised into levels for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: There was increased ED patient flow during strike days with a significantly shorter total time in department in March [240 min (IQR 155-469) vs. 286 min (IQR 198.5-523.5), P  < 0.001] and in April [222.5 min (IQR 147-351) vs. 251.5 min (IQR 174-443), P  < 0.001]. Time to first clinician, treatment, and decision to admit were all shorter during both strike actions. Number of attendances, acuity, diagnoses, admission, discharge, and mortality rates were similar during strike and non-strike days. Staffing numbers were lower or equivalent on strike days but level of seniority was higher ( P  < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The improved KPIs and increased patient flow during strike days, while multifactorial, seem largely attributed to the higher number of senior staff. Patient presentations and outcomes were unaffected by junior doctor strike action.

Global and regional governance of One Health and implications for global health security.

The apparent failure of global health security to prevent or prepare for the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for closer cooperation between human, animal (domestic and wildlife), and environmental health sectors. However, the many institutions, processes, regulatory frameworks, and legal instruments with direct and indirect roles in the global governance of One Health have led to a fragmented, global, multilateral health security architecture. We explore four challenges: first, the sectoral, professional, and institutional silos and tensions existing between human, animal, and environmental health; second, the challenge that the international legal system, state sovereignty, and existing legal instruments pose for the governance of One Health; third, the power dynamics and asymmetry in power between countries represented in multilateral institutions and their impact on priority setting; and finally, the current financing mechanisms that predominantly focus on response to crises, and the chronic underinvestment for epidemic and emergency prevention, mitigation, and preparedness activities. We illustrate the global and regional dimensions to these four challenges and how they relate to national needs and priorities through three case studies on compulsory licensing, the governance of water resources in the Lake Chad Basin, and the desert locust infestation in east Africa. Finally, we propose 12 recommendations for the global community to address these challenges. Despite its broad and holistic agenda, One Health continues to be dominated by human and domestic animal health experts. Substantial efforts should be made to address the social-ecological drivers of health emergencies including outbreaks of emerging, re-emerging, and endemic infectious diseases. These drivers include climate change, biodiversity loss, and land-use change, and therefore require effective and enforceable legislation, investment, capacity building, and integration of other sectors and professionals beyond health.

Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety.

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

BACKGROUND: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). METHOD: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. RESULTS: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. DISCUSSION: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training.

Evaluating Healthcare Worker Competence in the Correct Use of Personal Protective Equipment in the COVID Era: A Quality Improvement Project.

INTRODUCTION: Throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance has rapidly evolved. Healthcare workers (HCWs) should use PPE correctly to reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission of the coronavirus. We predict a lack of training regarding correct PPE usage amongst HCWs and introduce a low-resource method of training. METHODS: HCWs from various disciplines at a District General Hospital self-rated their ability in utilising PPE using uncontrolled pre- and post-session 16-item questionnaires following a single PPE training session. Participant responses were analysed using Student's t-test for independent (unpaired) samples. RESULTS: Of 64 participants, 37 participants (59%) received any prior PPE training. Six participants (9%) previously received specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 PPE training. Survey scores were higher in the post-test than the pre-test group. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the lack of formal PPE training amongst HCWs and the need for establishing PPE training as part of the mandatory training of HCWs.