Background and Aim During this COVID‐19 pandemic, Taiwan is one of the few countries where fecal immunochemical test and endoscopic activity for colorectal cancer screening keeps ongoing. We aimed to investigate how screening uptake and colonoscopy rate were affected in one of the biggest screening hubs in Northern Taiwan. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study tracing and analyzing the screening uptake and the trend of compliance to diagnostic colonoscopy in fecal immunochemical test‐positive subjects in the National Taiwan University Hospital screening hub since the outbreak of COVID‐19 and compared it with that of the corresponding periods in the past 3 years. Cancellation and rescheduling rates of colonoscopy and related reasons were also explored. Results Screening uptake during December 2019 to April 2020 was 88.8%, which was significantly lower than that in the corresponding period of the past 3 years (91.2–92.7%, P for trend < 0.0001). Colonoscopy rate in this period was 66.1%, which was also significantly lower than that in the past 3 years (70.2–77.5%, P for trend = 0.017). Rescheduling or cancellation rate was up to 10.9%, which was significantly higher than that in the past 3 years ( P for trend = 0.023), and half of them was due to the fear of being infected. Conclusion Fecal immunochemical test screening was significantly affected by COVID‐19 pandemic. In order to resume the practice in COVID‐19 era, screening organizers should consider various approaches to secure timely diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

Background Basic life support (BLS) education is essential for improving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rates, but the imparting of such education faces obstacles during the outbreak of emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. When face-to-face teaching is limited, distance learning—blended learning (BL) or an online-only model—is encouraged. However, evidence regarding the effect of online-only CPR training is scarce, and comparative studies on classroom-based BL (CBL) are lacking. While other strategies have recommended self-directed learning and deliberate practice to enhance CPR education, no previous studies have incorporated all of these instructional methods into a BLS course. Objective This study aimed to demonstrate a novel BLS training model—remote practice BL (RBL)—and compare its educational outcomes with those of the conventional CBL model. Methods A static-group comparison study was conducted. It included RBL and CBL courses that shared the same paradigm, comprising online lectures, a deliberate practice session with Little Anne quality CPR (QCPR) manikin feedback, and a final assessment session. In the main intervention, the RBL group was required to perform distant self-directed deliberate practice and complete the final assessment via an online video conference. Manikin-rated CPR scores were measured as the primary outcome; the number of retakes of the final examination was the secondary outcome. Results A total of 52 and 104 participants from the RBL and CBL groups, respectively, were eligible for data analysis. A comparison of the 2 groups revealed that there were more women in the RBL group than the CBL group (36/52, 69.2% vs 51/104, 49%, respectively; P=.02). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in scores for QCPR release (96.9 vs 96.4, respectively; P=.61), QCPR depth (99.2 vs 99.5, respectively; P=.27), or QCPR rate (94.9 vs 95.5, respectively; P=.83). The RBL group spent more days practicing before the final assessment (12.4 vs 8.9 days, respectively; P<.001) and also had a higher number of retakes (1.4 vs 1.1 times, respectively; P<.001). Conclusions We developed a remote practice BL–based method for online-only distant BLS CPR training. In terms of CPR performance, using remote self-directed deliberate practice was not inferior to the conventional classroom-based instructor-led method, although it tended to take more time to achieve the same effect. Trial Registration Not applicable.

BACKGROUND Basic life support (BLS) education is essential for improving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rates, but the imparting of such education faces obstacles during the outbreak of emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. When face-to-face teaching is limited, distance learning—blended learning (BL) or an online-only model—is encouraged. However, evidence regarding the effect of online-only CPR training is scarce, and comparative studies on classroom-based BL (CBL) are lacking. While other strategies have recommended self-directed learning and deliberate practice to enhance CPR education, no previous studies have incorporated all of these instructional methods into a BLS course. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to demonstrate a novel BLS training model—remote practice BL (RBL)—and compare its educational outcomes with those of the conventional CBL model. METHODS A static-group comparison study was conducted. It included RBL and CBL courses that shared the same paradigm, comprising online lectures, a deliberate practice session with Little Anne quality CPR (QCPR) manikin feedback, and a final assessment session. In the main intervention, the RBL group was required to perform distant self-directed deliberate practice and complete the final assessment via an online video conference. Manikin-rated CPR scores were measured as the primary outcome; the number of retakes of the final examination was the secondary outcome. RESULTS A total of 52 and 104 participants from the RBL and CBL groups, respectively, were eligible for data analysis. A comparison of the 2 groups revealed that there were more women in the RBL group than the CBL group (36/52, 69.2% vs 51/104, 49%, respectively; <i>P</i>=.02). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in scores for QCPR release (96.9 vs 96.4, respectively; <i>P</i>=.61), QCPR depth (99.2 vs 99.5, respectively; <i>P</i>=.27), or QCPR rate (94.9 vs 95.5, respectively; <i>P</i>=.83). The RBL group spent more days practicing before the final assessment (12.4 vs 8.9 days, respectively; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) and also had a higher number of retakes (1.4 vs 1.1 times, respectively; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). CONCLUSIONS We developed a remote practice BL–based method for online-only distant BLS CPR training. In terms of CPR performance, using remote self-directed deliberate practice was not inferior to the conventional classroom-based instructor-led method, although it tended to take more time to achieve the same effect. CLINICALTRIAL Not applicable.