Recruiting students to rural longitudinal integrated clerkships: a qualitative study of medical educationists' experiences across continents.

INTRODUCTION: Many health systems struggle in the provision of a sustainable and an efficient rural health workforce. There is evidence to suggest that Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships (LIC) placing student learners in rural community settings have positively impacted the provision of rural health care services The recruitment and engagement of students in rural LIC have significant challenges. This study explored best practice methods of recruiting and supporting the transition of medical students into rural LIC. METHODS: The study took place during the 2021 Consortium of Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships Conference, a virtual event hosted by Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Participants consisted of delegates attending the Personally Arranged Learning Session (PeArLS) themed 'Secrets to success'. The session was recorded with the participants' consent and the recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data was uploaded to NVivo software and coded and analyzed using constant comparative analysis. Salient themes and patterns were identified. RESULTS: Thirteen attendees participated in the PeArLS representing a range of countries and institutions. Strategically marketing the LIC brand, improving the LIC program profile within institutions by bridging logistics, and the need to scaffold the transition to the rural LIC learning environment emerged as key themes for success. The attendees highlighted their experiences of using peer groups, early exposure to rural LIC sites, and student allocation strategies for promotion. Unique learning styles adopted in LIC models, student anxiety and the importance of fostering supportive relationships with stakeholders to support students in their transition to the LIC environment were discussed. DISCUSSION: This PeArLS highlighted successful systems and processes implemented in rural settings across different countries to recruit and manage the transition of medical students to rural LIC. The process proved to be a quick and efficient way to elicit rich information and may be of benefit to educationists seeking to establish similar programs or improve existing rural LIC.

Acceptability, technological feasibility and educational value of remotely facilitated simulation based training: A scoping review.

Although remote teaching and learning is not new to medical education, the Covid-19 pandemic has heightened its importance as a mode of education delivery. This scoping review aims to provide a narrative/iterative summary of the current literature in assessing the acceptability, educational value and technological feasibility of remotely facilitated (RF) simulation-based training (SBT) - 'telesimulation', for medical students and facilitators. The review was conducted using the method described by Arksey and O'Malley. A systematic process was followed to search multiple electronic databases supplemented with a general internet search to identify any relevant grey literature. The search strategy was developed in collaboration with medical students and educators familiar with SBT. Nine articles were identified as fitting the review inclusion criteria. The results indicated that RF SBT was positively viewed by participants but may not be viewed as equivalent to locally facilitated SBT. Participants of RF SBT felt confident to deal with common acute scenarios, believed it could expand their knowledge and skills and in turn would improve patient care in the clinical setting. Facilitators found RF SBT to be technologically feasible, promoting the acquisition of desired learning outcomes. Future research should assess the reaction to, and learning acquired during RF SBT, particularly, the perception and attitudes of facilitators. A clear research gap was identified in literature assessing the role of RF SBT in behavioural change and improved clinical care outcomes. Addresing these gaps will clarify the role of RF SBT in medical education.

Comparing the Accuracy of Mass Casualty Triage Systems When Used in an Adult Population.

Objective: To use a previously published criterion standard to compare the accuracy of 4 different mass casualty triage systems (Sort, Assess, Lifesaving Interventions, Treatment/Transport [SALT], Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment [START], Triage Sieve, and CareFlight) when used in an emergency department-based adult population. Methods: We performed a prospective, observational study of a convenience sample of adults aged 18 years or older presenting to a single tertiary care hospital emergency department. A co-investigator with prior emergency medical services (EMS) experience observed each subject's initial triage in the emergency department and recorded all data points necessary to assign a triage category using each of the 4 mass casualty triage systems being studied. Subjects' medical records were reviewed after their discharge from the hospital to assign the "correct" triage category using the criterion standard. The 4 mass casualty triage system assignments were then compared to the "correct" assignment. Descriptive statistics were used to compare accuracy and over- and under-triage rates for each triage system. Results: A total of 125 subjects were included in the study. Of those, 53% were male and 59% were transported by private vehicle. When compared to the criterion standard definitions, SALT was found to have the highest accuracy rate (52%; 95% CI 43-60) compared to START (36%; 95% CI 28-44), CareFlight (36%; 95% CI 28-44), and TriageSieve (37%; 95% CI 28-45). SALT also had the lowest under-triage rate (26%; 95% CI 19-34) compared to START (57%; 95% CI 48-66), CareFlight (58%; 95% CI 49-66), and TriageSieve (58%; 95% CI 49-66). SALT had the highest over-triage rate (22%; 95% CI 14-29) compared to START (7%; 95% CI 3-12), CareFlight (6%; 95% CI 2-11) and TriageSieve (6%; 95% CI 2-11). Conclusion: We found that SALT triage most often correctly triaged adult emergency department patients when compared to a previously published criterion standard. While there are no target under- and over-triage rates that have been published for mass casualty triage, all 4 systems had relatively high rates of under-triage.

Comparing the Accuracy of Mass Casualty Triage Systems in a Pediatric Population.

INTRODUCTION: It was previously difficult to compare the accuracy of different mass casualty triage systems to one another. This pilot study is one of the first attempts to operationalize an expert panel's criterion standard definitions of triage categories in a pediatric population in order to compare accuracy between different systems. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of 4 different mass casualty triage systems (SALT, JumpSTART, Triage Sieve, and CareFlight) when used for children. METHODS: We observed the emergency department triage of patients less than 18 years old presenting to the only pediatric specialty hospital/Level 1 trauma center in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. A single, certified EMS provider observed each patient's initial triage in the emergency department and recorded all findings that were necessary to categorize the patient using each of the 4 mass casualty triage systems being studied. Hospital medical records were then reviewed for each patient and assigned a criterion standard triage category based on the treatments received and final disposition. Descriptive statistics were used to compare accuracy, over-, and under-triage rates for each of the triage systems. RESULTS: A total of 115 subjects were enrolled. Of those, 51% were male and 57% were transported by ambulance. When compared to the criterion standard definitions, SALT was found to have the highest accuracy rate (59%; 95% CI 50-68) compared to JumpSTART (57%; 95% CI 48-66), CareFlight (56%; 95% CI 47-65), and TriageSieve (56%; 95% CI 46-65). SALT also had the lowest under-triage rate (33%; 95% CI 24-42) compared to JumpSTART (39%; 95% CI 30-48), CareFlight (39%; 95% CI 30-48), and TriageSieve (39%; 95% CI 30-48). SALT had the highest over-triage rate (6%; 95% CI 2-11) compared to JumpSTART (4%; 95% CI 1-8), CareFlight (5%; 95% CI 1-9), and TriageSieve (5%; 95% CI 1-9). However, the confidence intervals for both the accuracy and under-triage rates overlapped between all triage systems. For each triage system, the most common error was designating a patient as "minimal" that, according to the criterion standard, should have been triaged as "delayed." CONCLUSION: We found that the 4 most popular mass casualty triage systems preformed similarly in an emergency department-based pediatric population. None of the systems were extremely accurate, and each demonstrated an unacceptable amount of under-triage. Better differentiating between patients categorized as "minimal" and "delayed" may improve the accuracy of mass casualty triage systems.