Michelle Daniel1, Morris Gordon2,3, Madalena Patricio4, Ahmad Hider5, Cameron Pawlik5, Rhea Bhagdev2, Shoaib Ahmad2, Sebastian Alston6, Sophie Park7, Teresa Pawlikowska8, Eliot Rees7,9, Andrea Jane Doyle8, Mohan Pammi10, Satid Thammasitboon10,11, Mary Haas5, William Peterson5, Madelyn Lew5, Deena Khamees5, Maxwell Spadafore5, Nicola Clarke7, Jennifer Stojan5. 1. Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 2. Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackpool, UK. 3. School of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, Lancashire, UK. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. 5. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. Division of Clinical Sciences, Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine, Dothan, AL, USA. 7. Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, London, UK. 8. Health Professions Education Centre (HPEC), Royal College of Surgeons University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland. 9. School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK. 10. Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 11. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has fundamentally altered how education is delivered. Gordon et al. previously conducted a review of medical education developments in response to COVID-19; however, the field has rapidly evolved in the ensuing months. This scoping review aims to map the extent, range and nature of subsequent developments, summarizing the expanding evidence base and identifying areas for future research. METHODS: The authors followed the five stages of a scoping review outlined by Arskey and O'Malley. Four online databases and MedEdPublish were searched. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Included articles described developments in medical education deployed in response to COVID-19 and reported outcomes. Data extraction was completed by two authors and synthesized into a variety of maps and charts. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven articles were included: 104 were from North America, Asia and Europe; 51 were undergraduate, 41 graduate, 22 continuing medical education, and 13 mixed; 35 were implemented by universities, 75 by academic hospitals, and 17 by organizations or collaborations. The focus of developments included pivoting to online learning (n = 58), simulation (n = 24), assessment (n = 11), well-being (n = 8), telehealth (n = 5), clinical service reconfigurations (n = 4), interviews (n = 4), service provision (n = 2), faculty development (n = 2) and other (n = 9). The most common Kirkpatrick outcome reported was Level 1, however, a number of studies reported 2a or 2b. A few described Levels 3, 4a, 4b or other outcomes (e.g. quality improvement). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review mapped the available literature on developments in medical education in response to COVID-19, summarizing developments and outcomes to serve as a guide for future work. The review highlighted areas of relative strength, as well as several gaps. Numerous articles have been written about remote learning and simulation and these areas are ripe for full systematic reviews. Telehealth, interviews and faculty development were lacking and need urgent attention.
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has fundamentally altered how education is delivered. Gordon et al. previously conducted a review of medical education developments in response to COVID-19; however, the field has rapidly evolved in the ensuing months. This scoping review aims to map the extent, range and nature of subsequent developments, summarizing the expanding evidence base and identifying areas for future research. METHODS: The authors followed the five stages of a scoping review outlined by Arskey and O'Malley. Four online databases and MedEdPublish were searched. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Included articles described developments in medical education deployed in response to COVID-19 and reported outcomes. Data extraction was completed by two authors and synthesized into a variety of maps and charts. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven articles were included: 104 were from North America, Asia and Europe; 51 were undergraduate, 41 graduate, 22 continuing medical education, and 13 mixed; 35 were implemented by universities, 75 by academic hospitals, and 17 by organizations or collaborations. The focus of developments included pivoting to online learning (n = 58), simulation (n = 24), assessment (n = 11), well-being (n = 8), telehealth (n = 5), clinical service reconfigurations (n = 4), interviews (n = 4), service provision (n = 2), faculty development (n = 2) and other (n = 9). The most common Kirkpatrick outcome reported was Level 1, however, a number of studies reported 2a or 2b. A few described Levels 3, 4a, 4b or other outcomes (e.g. quality improvement). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review mapped the available literature on developments in medical education in response to COVID-19, summarizing developments and outcomes to serve as a guide for future work. The review highlighted areas of relative strength, as well as several gaps. Numerous articles have been written about remote learning and simulation and these areas are ripe for full systematic reviews. Telehealth, interviews and faculty development were lacking and need urgent attention.
Entities:
Keywords:
Best evidence medical education; continuing; postgraduate; undergraduate
Authors: Judith Strawbridge; John C Hayden; Tracy Robson; Michelle Flood; Shane Cullinan; Matthew Lynch; Anne Teresa Morgan; Fiona O'Brien; Róisín Reynolds; Steven W Kerrigan; Gianpiero Cavalleri; Brian P Kirby; Orna Tighe; Anthony Maher; James W Barlow Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm Date: 2021-08-17
Authors: Grace Hickam; Jaime Jordan; Mary R C Haas; Jason Wagner; David Manthey; Stephen John Cico; Margaret Wolff; Sally A Santen Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2022-02-01
Authors: Warunya Woranush; Annahita Sedghi; Mats Leif Moskopp; Julia Japtok; Christian G Ziegler; Jessica Barlinn; Lutz Mirow; Thomas Noll; Timo Siepmann Journal: Ann Med Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 4.709