Trainees' perceptions and expectations of formal academic mentoring during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesian cardiology residency programs.

PURPOSE: During medical residency programs, physicians develop their professional identities as specialists and encounter high expectations in terms of achieving competencies. The responsibilities of medical trainees include caring for patients, balancing work with personal life, and weathering stress, depression, and burnout. Formal academic mentoring programs strive to ease these burdens. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered the trainee­academic mentor relationship, and solutions are needed to address these challenges. The present study aimed to evaluate the formal academic mentoring process through trainees' perceptions and expectations of formal mentoring programs during COVID-19 in Indonesian cardiology residency programs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a self-administered online questionnaire to capture trainees' perceptions and expectations regarding academic mentoring programs in 3 cardiology residency programs in Indonesia from October to November 2020. The questionnaire was developed before data collection. Perceptions of the existing mentoring programs were compared with expectations. RESULTS: Responses were gathered from 169 out of 174 residents (response rate, 97.3%). Most trainees reported having direct contact with COVID-19 patients (88.82%). They stated that changes had taken place in the mode and frequency of communication with their academic advisors during the pandemic. Significant differences were found between trainees' perceptions of the existing mentoring programs and their expectations for academic mentoring programs (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite the challenges of interacting with their academic mentors, trainees still perceived academic mentors as a vital resource. Study programs need to consider trainees' expectations when designing academic mentoring programs.

Comparison between radial versus femoral percutaneous coronary intervention access in Indonesian hospitals, 2017-2018: A prospective observational study of a national registry.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death in Indonesia and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a routinely performed procedure. The aim of this study is to provide real-world insight on the demographics of coronary artery disease and comparison between radial compared to femoral PCI in Indonesia, which performed radial access whenever possible. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study involving 5420 patients with coronary artery disease who underwent PCI at 9 participating centers in the period of January 2017-December 2018. RESULTS: Radial access rate was performed in 4038 (74.5%) patients. Patients receiving femoral access has a higher rate of comorbidities and complex lesions compared to radial access. The incidence of in-hospital mortality, cardiogenic shock, major arrhythmia, and tamponade were higher in femoral group. The incidence of in-hospital mortality was 114 (2.1%). New-onset angina (OR 3.412), chronic renal failure (OR 3.47), RBBB (OR 4.26), LBBB (OR 6.26), left main stenosis PCI (OR 3.58), cardiogenic shock (OR 4.9), and arrhythmia (OR 15.59) were found to be independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Radial access did not independently affect in-hospital mortality. In propensity-matched cohort, radial access was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality in both bivariable and multivariable model. However, radial access was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality in STEMI subgroup (OR 0.31). CONCLUSION: Higher rate of adverse events was noted on the femoral access group. However, it might stem from the fact that patients with more comorbidities and complex lesions are more likely to be assigned to femoral access-group. Neither radial or femoral access is superior in terms of in-hospital mortality upon propensity-score matching/multivariable analysis.