Disaster Training Following COVID-19 for Pediatric Medical Residents: Demand and Format

Abstract

Objective: Assess the knowledge, confidence, and attitudes of residents towards disaster medicine education in the COVID-19 era. Methods: Survey distributed to pediatric residents at a tertiary care center, assessing confidence in disaster medicine knowledge and skills and preferred educational methods. Based on residents’ responses, virtual and in-person educational session implemented with post-survey to analyze effectiveness of education. Results: Distributed to 120 residents with a 51.6% response rate. Almost half (46.8%) of residents had less than 1 hour of disaster training, with only 9.7% having experience with a prior disaster event. However, most residents were motivated to increase their knowledge of disaster medicine due to COVID-19 and other recent disasters, with 96.8% interested in this education as a curriculum standard. Simulation and peer learning were the most preferred method of teaching. Subsequent virtual and in-person educational session demonstrated improvement in confidence scores. However, 66.7% of the virtual subset conveyed they would have preferred in-person learning. Conclusion: COVID-19 has highlighted to trainees that disasters can affect all specialties, and pediatric residents are enthusiastic to close the educational gap of disaster medicine. However, residents stressed that although virtual education can provide a foundation, in-person simulation is preferred for effective training.

Health Care Simulation in Person and at a Distance

“…Qualitative studies that explored learners' experiences demonstrated a clear preference for in-person teaching 26,27,37 …”

“…A detailed list of study outcomes can be found in Qualitative studies that explored learners' experiences demonstrated a clear preference for in-person teaching 26,27,37 A summary of the reported findings related to simulation is presented in SDC 4, http://links.lww.com/SIH/A996 including the few studies that compare mixed-distance methods. Eight (23.5%) mention using a tool with published validity evidence for the outcome being assessed, whereas 25 do not report or have no validity evidence for their assessment tool and use other forms of author-designed assessment.…”