No abstract

Background The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated a sudden transition to remote learning in medical schools. We aimed to assess perceptions of remote learning among pre-clinical medical students and subsequently to identify pros and cons of remote learning, as well as uncover gaps to address in ongoing curricular development. Methods A survey was distributed to first- and second-year medical students at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine in March 2020. Frequencies of responses to structured multiple-choice questions were compared regarding impacts of remote learning on quality of instruction and ability to participate, value of various remote learning resources, living environment, and preparedness for subsequent stages of training. Responses to open-ended questions about strengths and weaknesses of the remote curriculum and overall reflections were coded for thematic content. Results Of 268 students enrolled, 104 responded (53.7% of first-year students and 23.9% of second-year students). Overall, students felt that remote learning had negatively affected the quality of instruction and their ability to participate. Most (64.1%) preferred the flexibility of learning material at their own pace. Only 25.5% of respondents still felt connected to the medical school or classmates, and feelings of anxiety and isolation were noted negatives of remote learning. Most second-year students (56.7%) felt their preparation for the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam was negatively affected, and 43.3% felt unprepared to begin clerkships. In narrative responses, most students appreciated the increased flexibility of remote learning, but they also identified several deficits that still need to be addressed, including digital fatigue, decreased ability to participate, and lack of clinical skills, laboratory, and hands-on learning. Conclusions Videocasted lectures uploaded in advance, electronic health record and telehealth training for students, and training for teaching faculty to increase technological fluency may be considered to optimize remote learning curricula.

Objectives/Hypothesis To provide national level data on frequency of tracheotomy and complication rate and in-hospital mortality following tracheotomy. Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Methods Retrospective cohort study using a public national database, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 2006. Results There were 113,653 tracheotomies performed in patients 18 years or older in 2006. The overall complication rate was 3.2%, and the in-hospital mortality rate was 19.2%. The data suggest that in-hospital mortality is usually due to the underlying illness rather than the tracheotomy. Mortality was higher in patients older than 50 years, those with cardiac conditions, particularly congestive heart failure, those with public insurance, and patients in Northeast hospitals. Patients with neurologic conditions, trauma, and upper airway infection are more likely to survive to discharge. In-hospital mortality is slightly higher in nonteaching hospitals. Conclusions This database study determined baseline data for the rate of complications (3.2%) for patients undergoing tracheotomy; it showed that only 80% of adult patients who underwent tracheotomy in the United States survived to discharge. Patients located in the Northeast, patients more than 50 years old, and patients with cardiac conditions were at particularly high risk for mortality. This study provides normative data for these outcomes for patient counseling and planning future quality improvement initiatives in this patient population.

Objectives: Emergency physicians (EPs) are beginning to use ultrasound (US) guidance to perform regional nerve blocks. The primary objective of this study was to compare length of stay (LOS) in patients randomized to US-guided interscalene block or procedural sedation to facilitate reduction of shoulder dislocation in the emergency department (ED). The secondary objectives were to compare one-on-one health care provider time, pain experienced by the patient during reduction, and patient satisfaction between the two groups.Methods: This was a prospective, randomized study of patients presenting to the ED with shoulder dislocation. The study was conducted at an academic Level I trauma center ED with an annual census of approximately 80,000. Patients were eligible for the study if they were at least 18 years of age and required reduction of a shoulder dislocation. A convenience sample of patients was randomized to either traditional procedural sedation or US-guided interscalene nerve block. Procedural sedation was performed with etomidate as the sole agent. Interscalene blocks were performed by hospital-credentialed EPs using sterile technique and a SonoSite MicroMaxx US machine with a high-frequency linear array transducer. Categorical variables were evaluated using Fisher's exact test, and continuous variables were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.Results: Forty-two patients were enrolled, with 21 patients randomized to each group. The groups were not significantly different with respect to sex or age. The mean (±SD) LOS in the ED was significantly higher in the procedural sedation group (177.3 ± 37.9 min) than in the US-guided interscalene block group (100.3 ± 28.2 minutes; p < 0.0001). The mean (±SD) one-on-one health care provider time was 47.1 (±9.8) minutes for the sedation group and 5 (±0.7) minutes for the US-guided interscalene block group (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in patient satisfaction or pain experienced during the procedure. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to complications such as hypoxia or hypotension (p = 0.49). Conclusions:In this study, patients undergoing shoulder dislocation reduction using US-guided interscalene block spent less time in the ED and required less one-on-one health care provider time compared to those receiving procedural sedation. There was no difference in pain level or satisfaction when compared to procedural sedation patients.