The world is countering unprecedented health catastrophe but this is not the first instance. Before COVID-19, another cholera pandemic and the "Spanish Flu" desolated the world in the early piece of the twentieth century. Therefore, while there have been episodes of Asian influenza, SARS, MERS, Ebola, and so on, the pandemic of COVID-19 is on an extraordinary scale. It has shaken the whole world and made worldwide frenzy. The remedial measures like social distancing and lockdown have totally disturbed our routine life activities. Household work and rigorous and timeless work from home have made life more complicated physically as well as mentally stressful.

Objectives: In an adverse event investigation, the patients have the potential to add a unique perspective because they can identify contributing factors that providers may miss. However, patients are rarely included in patient safety investigations. We aimed to identify the barriers to patient involvement in patient safety investigations and propose strategies to overcome them. Methods:We reviewed literature on active participation by patients in safety investigations to construct a framework for healthcare institutions to use in approaching patients about a potential role in investigating an error in their care. We searched 3 electronic databases (PubMed, PSNet, Web of Science) for the years 1990 to 2018, without restrictions to language. Search terms included: "patient empowerment, "patient involvement," "patient participation," "patient safety investigation," "root cause analysis," "error analysis." We also examined reference lists of relevant studies to identify additional articles.Results: Our electronic search produced 10,624 records with 30 potentially eligible articles. However, we identified only 6 relevant published articles. We used these as the basis for a proposed framework that is predicated on the thoughtful disclosure of adverse events and has 3 main levels (i.e., patient, clinician, and institutional level). For each level, we identify barriers to patient participation and potential strategies to overcome them. Conclusions:The proposed framework can be used as a starting point to promote patient involvement in error investigations. Involving patients in patient safety investigations could increase patient centeredness, patient autonomy, and transparency and make analyses more effective by adding unique and potentially actionable information.

Objective To characterize features of medical student exposure to difficult conversations during a neurology core clerkship. MethodsThis was a cross-sectional concurrent nested mixed methods study, and all students rotating through a required neurology clerkship between 2014 and 2015 were enrolled. Data collection included an electronic communication tracker, baseline and end-of-clerkship surveys, and 4 facilitated focus groups. Students were asked to log exposure to patient-clinician conversations about (1) new disability, (2) poor prognosis, (3) prognostic uncertainty (4), terminal diagnosis, and (5) end-of-life care. ResultsA total of 159 students were enrolled and 276 conversations were tracked. Most (70%) students observed at least 1 difficult conversation, and conversations about poor prognosis, new disability, and prognostic uncertainty were most commonly logged. At clerkship end, most students (87%) desired additional bedside training in communication skills. Exposure to one of the predefined conversation types did not improve student perceived preparedness to lead difficult conversations in the future. In focus groups, students noted that the educational value of observation of a difficult conversation could be optimized with preconversation planning and postconversation debriefing. ConclusionsDifficult conversations are common in neurology, and represent a valuable opportunity to provide communication skills training on the wards. Future curricula should consider ways to leverage these existing opportunities to enhance communication skills training.