The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected medical education. Emergency medicine (EM) requires excellence in multiple core competencies, including leadership, teamwork, and communication skills as well as procedural experience. To meet these How to cite this article: Austin A, Rudolf F, Fernandez J, et al.COVID-19 educational innovation: Hybrid in-person and virtual simulation for emergency medicine trainees. AEM

No abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance. Results: One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel. Conclusions: The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.

OBJECTIVES An increasing number of pediatric patients with psychiatric chief complaints present to emergency departments (EDs) nationwide. Many of these patients require treatment with antipsychotic medications to treat agitation. We sought to examine the use of antipsychotic medications in pediatric patients presenting to a tertiary care pediatric ED. METHODS We performed a retrospective electronic medical record review of patients presenting to a tertiary care pediatric hospital from January 2009 through February 2016 with a psychiatric chief complaint who received an antipsychotic medication in the ED. RESULTS A total of 229 patients were identified, 54.1% of whom were male. Mean age was 14.4 ± 2.6 years. Commonly administered medications included olanzapine (51.1%), aripiprazole (26.6%), haloperidol (24.0%), and risperidone (11.8%). Eighty-seven patients (38.0%) were given at least 1 intravenous or intramuscular dose of antipsychotic medication. A total of 113 patients (49.3%) received only 1 antipsychotic medication, 65 (28.4%) received 2, 30 (13.1%) received 3, and 21 (9.2%) received 4 or more antipsychotics. Median length of stay (minutes) increased significantly with increasing number of medications administered (p < 0.001). Length of stay was significantly shorter in patients given only oral medications (675.6 minutes, IQR 418–1194) compared to those given at least one intramuscular or intravenous dose (951 minutes, IQR 454–1652) (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS In this retrospective series, the majority of patients were treated with newer oral antipsychotics. Administration of multiple medications was associated with a significantly longer length of stay in the ED, as was parenteral administration of antipsychotics.

No abstract