No abstract

Introduction: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) created challenges with access to care including increased burden on healthcare systems and potential exposure risks for vulnerable patients. To address these needs, Rush University Medical Center created a virtual, urgent care program specifically designed to address these challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This was a retrospective study analyzing adult patients with COVID-19-related telemedicine visits performed between March 1–June 30, 2020. COVID-19-related telemedicine visits refer to those who used the “Concern for Coronavirus” module. We assessed the total number of telemedicine visits using this module, percentage with a subsequent emergency department (ED) visit within seven days, and outcomes (ie, hospitalization status, intubation, and death) of patients who presented to the ED for evaluation. Data are presented using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 2,974 adult patients accessed the program via the COVID-19 module over the four-month period. Of those, 142 patients (4.8%) had an ED visit within seven days. Only 14 patients (0.5%) required admission. One patient was intubated, and there were no deaths among the telemedicine population. Conclusion: The data suggests that telemedicine may be a safe and effective way to screen and treat patients with possible COVID-19, while reducing potential burdens on EDs.

Introduction:The strengths and weaknesses of virtual and in-person formats within continuing professional development (CPD) are incompletely understood. This study sought to explore attendees' perspectives across multiple specialties regarding benefits and limitations of conference formats and strategies for successful virtual and hybrid (i.e., in-person conferences with a virtual option) conferences.Methods: From December 2020 to January 2021, semistructured interviews were conducted with participants who attended both virtual and in-person CPD conferences. Purposive sampling was utilized to ensure diverse representation of gender, years in practice, location, academic rank, specialty, and practice type. Multiple specialties were intentionally sought to better understand the broader experience among physicians in general, rather than among a specific specialty. Using modified grounded theory approach with a constructivist-interpretivist paradigm, two investigators independently analyzed all interview transcripts. Discrepancies were resolved by indepth discussion and negotiated consensus.Results: Twenty-six individuals across 16 different specialties were interviewed. We identified three overarching concepts: motivations to attend conferences, benefits and limitations of different conference formats, and strategies to optimize virtual and hybrid conferences. Specific motivators included both professional and personal factors. Benefits of in person included networking/community, immersion, and wellness, while the major limitation was integration with personal life. Benefits of virtual were flexibility, accessibility, and incorporation of technology, while limitations included technical challenges, distractions, limitations for tactile learning, and communication/ connection. Benefits of hybrid included more options for access, while limitations included challenges with synchrony of formats and dilution of experiences. Strategies to improve virtual/hybrid conferences included optimizing technology/production, facilitating networking and engagement, and deliberate selection of content.Conclusions: This study identified several benefits and limitations of each medium as well as strategies to optimize virtual and hybrid CPD conferences. This may help inform future CPD conference planning for both attendees and conference planners alike.

No abstract

No abstract