Implementing a telemedicine curriculum for internal medicine residents during a pandemic: the Cleveland Clinic experience.

Telemedicine training was not a substantial element of most residency programmes prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Social distancing measures changed this. The Cleveland Clinic Internal Medicine Residency Programme (IMRP) is one of the largest programmes in the USA, which made the task of implementing a telemedicine curriculum more complex. Here we describe our experience implementing an effective, expedited telemedicine curriculum for our ambulatory resident clinics. This study was started in April 2020 when we implemented a resident-led curriculum and training programme for providing ambulatory telemedicine care. The curriculum was finalised in less than 5 weeks. It entailed introducing a formal training programme for residents, creating a resource guide for different video communication tools and training preceptors to safely supervise care in this new paradigm. Residents were surveyed before the curriculum to assess prior experience with telemedicine, and then afterward to assess the curriculum's effectiveness. We also created a mini-CEX assessment for residents to solicit feedback on their performance during virtual appointments. Over 2000 virtual visits were performed by residents in a span of 10 weeks. Of 148 residents, 38% responded to the pre-participation survey. A majority had no prior telemedicine experience and expressed only slight comfort with the modality. Through collaboration with experienced residents and faculty, we expeditiously deployed an enhancement to our ambulatory care curriculum to teach residents how to provide virtual care and help faculty with supervision. We share our insights on this experience for other residency programmes to use.

Effects of deep sedation on sleep in critically ill medical patients on mechanical ventilation.

Atypical EEG patterns not consistent with standard sleep staging criteria have been observed in medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Our aim was to examine the relationship between sleep architecture and sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients pre- and post-extubation. We performed a prospective observational repeated measures study where 50 mechanically ventilated patients with 31 paired analyses were examined at an academic medical centre. The sleep efficiency was 58.3 ± 25.4% for intubated patients and 45.6 ± 25.4% for extubated patients (p = .02). Intubated patients spent 76.33 ± 3.34% of time in non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep compared to 64.66 ± 4.06% of time for extubated patients (p = .02). REM sleep constituted 1.36 ± 0.67% of total sleep time in intubated patients and 2.06 ± 1.09% in extubated patients (p = .58). Relative sleep atypia was higher in intubated patients compared to extubated patients (3.38 ± 0.87 versus 2.79 ± 0.42; p < .001). Eleven patients were sedated with propofol only, 18 patients with fentanyl only, 11 patients with fentanyl and propofol, and 10 patients had no sedation. The mean sleep times on "propofol", "fentanyl", "propofol and fentanyl," and "no sedation" were 6.54 ± 0.64, 4.88 ± 0.75, 6.20 ± 0.75 and 4.02 ± 0.62 hr, respectively. The sigma/alpha values for patients on "propofol", "fentanyl", "propofol and fentanyl" and "no sedation" were 0.69 ± 0.04, 0.54 ± 0.01, 0.62 ± 0.02 and 0.57 ± 0.02, respectively. Sedated patients on mechanical ventilation had higher sleep efficiency and more atypia compared to the same patients following extubation. Propofol was associated with higher sleep duration and less disrupted sleep architecture compared to fentanyl, propofol and fentanyl, or no sedation.