MICy is a new, simple and rapid flow cytometry based antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) method that produces susceptibility profile a workday earlier than the microdilution method or other classical phenotypic AST methods. Shortening the length of AST can accelerate clinical decision-making as targeted antibiotic treatment improves clinical outcomes and reduces mortality, duration of artificial ventilation, and length of stay in intensive care unit.

Background The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) brought several challenges in medical education. The aim of our study was to investigate whether virtual distance trainings (VDT) organized during the COVID-19 pandemic at our university were effective in replacing in-person bed-side education in intensive therapy and anaesthesiology among fifth-year medical students, both from students’ and instructors’ perspectives. Methods This was a cross-sectional study consisting of three parts: a 20-item students’ questionnaire filled out by students participating in VDT, a 22-item instructors’ questionnaire filled out by instructors taking part in virtual distance education and a 20-item knowledge test completed by students participating in VDT, as well as by students visiting bed-side trainings (BT) during the same semester, before COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaires focused on effectiveness, content, self-preparedness, technical background and interactivity of VDT. Instructors’ and students’ responses given to the common questions, as well as the knowledge test results were compared. Mann-Whitney U test was used for group comparisons and binary logistic regression was performed to analyze the influence of previous health-care experience on students’ feeling of self-preparedness. Results One hundred thirthen students (response rate {RR}: 68%) and 29 instructors (RR: 97%) filled out the questionnaires. The majority of students found our VDT useful and effective; however, a considerable number of participants felt disadvantaged by taking VDT instead of BT sessions and would recommend keeping virtual distance education methods combined with BT. Instructors found VDT overall effective and deemed the transfer of their knowledge satisfactory; however, they described worse interactivity and contact with students during virtual sessions compared to in-person teaching. Instructors showed a clearer consensus that VDT should not replace BT in the future, while students’ answers were more divided in this regard. Previous health-care experience did not influence students’ feeling of self-preparedness. One hundred and twenty-seven students (56 after VDT {RR: 34%}; 71 after BT {RR: 67%}) completed the end-of-semester knowledge test. Students attending VDT performed better than students visiting BT (median score VDT:83.5 vs BT:77.3; p = 0.015). Conclusions Virtual distance learning incorporating virtual practice sessions was effective in maintaining continuous education of intensive therapy and anaesthesiology among fifth-year medical students during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) brought several challenges in medical education. The aim of our study was to investigate whether virtual trainings (VT) organized during the COVID-19 pandemic at our university were effective in replacing in-person bed-side education in intensive therapy and anaesthesiology among fifth-year medical students, both from students' and instructors' perspectives. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study consisting of three parts: a 20-item students' questionnaire filled out by students participating in VT, a 22-item instructors' questionnaire filled out by instructors taking part in virtual education and a 20-item knowledge test completed by students participating in VT, as well as by students visiting bed-side trainings (BT) during the same semester, before COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaires focused on effectiveness, content, self-preparedness, technical background and interactivity of VT. Instructors' and students' responses given to the common questions, as well as the knowledge test results were compared. Mann-Whitney U test was used for group comparisons and binary logistic regression was performed to analyse the influence of previous health-care experience on students' feeling of self-preparedness. Results: 113 students (68% response rate) and 29 instructors (97% response rate) filled out the questionnaires. The majority of students found our VT useful and effective; however, a considerable number of participants felt disadvantaged by taking a virtual course instead of bed-side learning sessions and would recommend to keep virtual distance learning methods combined with BT. Instructors found VT overall effective and deemed the transfer of their knowledge satisfactory; however, they described worse interactivity and contact with students during virtual sessions compared to in-person teaching. Instructors showed a clearer consensus that VT should not replace BT in the future, while students’ answers were more divided in this regard. Previous health-care experience did not influence students' feeling of self-preparedness. One hundred and twenty-seven students (56 after VT and 71 after BT) completed the end-of-semester knowledge test. Students participating in VT performed better than students visiting BT (median score VT:83.5 vs BT:77.3; p=0.015). Conclusions: The new curriculum incorporating virtual practice sessions was effective in maintaining continuous education of intensive therapy and anaesthesiology among fifth-year medical students during the COVID-19 outbreak.