Being medical students, and having experienced different learning approaches ourselves, here, we discuss and critically analyse the importance of the deep learning approach that Chonkar et al. have presented, alongside emphasizing Case Based Learning, and their roles in life long medical learning.

BackgroundHealthcare systems revolve around intricate relations between humans and technology. System efficiency depends on information exchange that occur on synchronous and asynchronous platforms. Traditional synchronous methods of communication may pose risks to workflow integrity and contribute to inefficient service delivery and medical care.AimTo compare synchronous methods of communication to Medic Bleep, an instant messaging asynchronous platform, and observe its impact on clinical workflow, quality of work life and associations with patient safety outcomes and hospital core operations.MethodsCohorts of healthcare professionals were followed using the Time Motion Study methodology over a 2-week period, using both the asynchronous platform and the synchronous methods like the non-cardiac pager. Questionnaires and interviews were conducted to identify staff attitudes towards both platforms.ResultsA statistically significant figure (p<0.01) of 20.1 minutes’ reduction in average task completion was seen with asynchronous communication, saving 58.8% of time when compared with traditional synchronous methods. In subcategory analysis for staff: doctors, nurses and midwifery categories, a p value of <0.0495 and <0.01 were observed; a mean time reduction with statistical significance was also seen in specific task efficiencies of ‘To-Take-Out (TTO), patient review, discharge & patient transfer and escalation of care & procedure’. The platform was favoured with an average Likert value of 8.7; 67% found it easy to implement.ConclusionThe asynchronous platform improved clinical communication compared with synchronous methods, contributing to efficiencies in workflow and may positively affect patient care.

No abstract

No abstract

The unprecedented threat of COVID-19 has taken its toll on the field of cancer research, with trial accrual rates seeing a sharp decline since the beginning of the pandemic. Recent evidence has suggested that decreased participation appears to be more pronounced in women than men, which raises concerns about an exacerbation of gender bias in research. The following manuscript is a commentary article to the recent study by Fox et al, who aimed at investigating the concerns of patients with regard to participating to cancer research, as well as examining potential gender disparities within their sample population. We provide a brief critique of their work, especially focusing on important limitations concerning sample size and under-representation of ethnic minority groups, before discussing their findings in light of current literature on gender differences in anxiety and risk perception, how this might be interpreted in the context of the current pandemic, and its impact on participation in cancer research. We present multiple lines of evidence which support the idea that women might experience greater anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic which could have a significant impact on cancer research participation and consequently the external validity of studies in the field. The first attempts to tackle these challenges have shown promise, but further research is required to perfect this process and target those groups who are at greatest need of intervention.