Online medical education using a Facebook peer-to-peer learning platform during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study exploring learner and tutor acceptability of Facebook as a learning platform.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, higher education institutions have been moving teaching online, accelerated by the pandemic. The Remote Learning Project (RLP), based at the Norwich Medical School (NMS) in the United Kingdom (U.K.), was a peer-to-peer teaching program developed to supplement medical school teaching during the pandemic. The teaching was delivered through Facebook using peer-to-peer teaching. Tutors were final year medical students, teaching medical student learners in lower years. Tutors and learners perception of peer-to-peer online learning delivered through the Facebook Social Media (SoMe) platform was investigated. METHODS: This qualitative study recruited tutor and learner participants from NMS by email, participation in the study was voluntary. Online semi-structured interviews of both tutors and learners in the remote learning project were conducted. The data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Seven participants were interviewed. Five themes were identified; education (learning/teaching), productivity, data security, professionalism, and usability of the platform. Learners enjoyed the asynchronous nature of the platform and both learners and tutors enjoyed the peer-to-peer nature of the RLP, including the ability to immediately and easily answer on Facebook comments. Some learners felt distracted on Facebook, whilst others enjoyed the reminders. The mix of social and professional on the platform was met with caution from tutors. Both learners and tutors enjoyed the familiarity of the platform. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that SoMe may be a credible platform to deliver online peer-to-peer teaching. Educators should consider the ergonomics of SoMe platforms when designing online curriculums. Guidelines for educators should be developed to better guide educators on the effective and safe use of SoMe as a learning tool.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in the UK: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to explore how people adapted to these measures over time. DESIGN: Mixed-methods investigation comprising a national online longitudinal survey and embedded qualitative study. SETTING: UK online survey and interviews with community-dwelling individuals in the East of England. PARTICIPANTS: People in the UK with RMDs were invited to participate in an online survey. A subsection of respondents were invited to participate in the embedded qualitative study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The online survey, completed fortnightly over 10 weeks from April 2020 to August 2020, investigated changes in symptoms, social isolation and loneliness, resilience and optimism. Qualitative interviews were undertaken assessing participant's perspectives on changes in symptoms, exercising, managing instrumental tasks such a shopping, medication and treatment regimens and how they experienced changes in their social networks. RESULTS: 703 people with RMDs completed the online survey. These people frequently reported a deterioration in symptoms as a result of COVID-19 pandemic social restrictions (52% reported increase vs 6% reported a decrease). This was significantly worse for those aged 18-60 years compared with older participants (p=0.017). The qualitative findings from 26 individuals with RMDs suggest that the greatest change in daily life was experienced by those in employment. Although some retired people reported reduced opportunity for exercise outside their homes, they did not face the many competing demands experienced by employed people and people with children at home. CONCLUSIONS: People with RMDs reported a deterioration in symptoms when COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures were enforced. This was worse for working-aged people. Consideration of this at-risk group, specifically for the promotion of physical activity, changing home-working practices and awareness of healthcare provision is important, as social restrictions continue in the UK.

Does a PBL-based medical curriculum predispose training in specific career paths? A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: North American medical schools have used problem-based learning (PBL) structured medical education for more than 60 years. However, it has only recently been introduced in other medical schools outside of North America. Since its inception, there has been the debate on whether the PBL learning process predisposes students to select certain career paths. OBJECTIVES: To review available evidence to determine the predisposition of specific career paths when undertaking a PBL-based medical curriculum. The career path trajectory was determined as measured by official Matching Programs, self-reported questionnaires and surveys, and formally defined career development milestones. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed. PubMed, Medline, Cochrane and ERIC databases were analysed in addition to reference lists for appropriate inclusion. RESULTS: Eleven studies fitting the inclusion criteria were identified. The majority of studies showed that PBL did not predispose a student to a career in a specific speciality (n = 7 out of 11 studies, 64%). However, three studies reported a significantly increased number of PBL graduates working in primary care compared to those from a non-PBL curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: PBL has been shown not to predispose medical students to a career in General Practice or any other speciality. Furthermore, a greater number of similar studies are required before a definitive conclusion can be made in the future.

Colonoscopic polyp detection rate is stable throughout the workday including evening colonoscopy sessions.

OBJECTIVE: Polyp detection rate (PDR) is an accepted measure of colonoscopy quality. Several factors may influence PDR including time of procedure and order of colonoscopy within a session. Our unit provides evening colonoscopy lists (6-9 pm). We examined whether colonoscopy performance declines in the evening. DESIGN: Data for all National Health Service (NHS) outpatient colonoscopies performed at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in 2011 were examined. Timing, demographics, indication and colonoscopy findings were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate regression. RESULTS: Data from 2576 colonoscopies were included: 1163 (45.1%) in the morning, 1123 (43.6%) in the afternoon and 290 (11.3%) in the evening.  Overall PDR was 40.80%. Males, increasing age and successful caecal intubation were all significantly associated with higher polyp detection. The indications 'faecal occult blood screening' (p<0.001) and 'polyp surveillance' (p<0.001) were strongly positively associated and 'anaemia' (p=0.01) was negatively associated with PDR. Following adjustment for  covariates, there was no significant difference in PDR between sessions. With the morning as the reference value, the odds ratio for polyp detection in the afternoon and evening were 0.93 (95% CI = 0.72-1.18) and 1.15 (95%CI = 0.82-1.61) respectively. PDR was not affected by rank of colonoscopy within a list, sedation dose or trainee-involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Time of day did not affect polyp detection rate in clinical practice. Evening colonoscopy had equivalent efficacy and is an effective tool in meeting increasing demands for endoscopy. Standardisation was shown to have a considerable effect as demographics, indication and endoscopist varied substantially between sessions. Evening sessions were popular with a younger population.