Introduction: End-of-life (EOL) conditions are commonly encountered by emergency physicians (EP). We aim to explore EPs’ experience and perspectives toward EOL discussions in acute settings. Methods: A qualitative survey was conducted among EPs in three tertiary institutions. Data on demographics, EOL knowledge, conflict management strategies, comfort level, and perceived barriers to EOL discussions were collected. Data analysis was performed using SPSS and SAS. Results: Of 63 respondents, 40 (63.5%) were male. Respondents comprised 22 senior residents/registrars, 9 associate consultants, 22 consultants, and 10 senior consultants. The median duration of emergency department practice was 8 (interquartile range: 6–10) years. A majority (79.3%) reported conducting EOL discussions daily to weekly, with most (90.5%) able to obtain general agreement with families and patients regarding goals of care. Top barriers were communications with family/clinicians, lack of understanding of palliative care, and lack of rapport with patients. 38 (60.3%) deferred discussions to other colleagues (e.g., intensivists), 10 (15.9%) involved more family members, and 13 (20.6%) employed a combination of approaches. Physician's comfort level in discussing EOL issues also differed with physician seniority and patient type. There was a positive correlation between the mean general comfort level when discussing EOL and the seniority of the EPs up till consultancy. However, the comfort level dropped among senior consultants as compared to consultants. EPs were most comfortable discussing EOL of patients with a known terminal illness and least comfortable in cases of sudden death. Conclusions: Formal training and standardized framework would be useful to enhance the competency of EPs in conducting EOL discussions.

Introduction: Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) course is one of the mandatory certifications for the majority of medical as well as some nursing professionals. There are, however, multiple variations in its instruction model worldwide. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of traditional ACLS course versus a hybrid ACLS course utilised during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This retrospective study was carried out at SingHealth Duke-NUS Institute of Medical Simulation using course results of participants in the centre’s ACLS course between May to October 2019 for the traditional course were compared with participants attending the hybrid course from February to June 2021. Results: A total of 925 participants were recruited during the study period. Of these, 626 participants were from the traditional group and 299 participants were from the hybrid learning group. There is no statistically significant difference between the two group (χ2=1.02 p = 0.313) in terms of first pass attempts; first pass attempt at MCQ (p=0.805) and first pass attempt at practical stations (p=0.408). However, there was statistically significant difference between the mean difference in results of traditional vs hybrid MCQ score, -0.29 (95% CI: -0.57 to -0.01, p=0.0409). Finally, senior doctors were also found to perform better than junior doctors in both traditional (p=0.0235) and hybrid courses (p=0.0309) at the first pass attempt of ACLS certification. Conclusion: Participants in the hybrid ACLS course demonstrated at least equal overall proficiency in certification of ACLS as compared to the traditional instruction.