1.Factors reducing inappropriate attendances to emergency departments before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentre study.
Lenard CHENG ; Wei Ming NG ; Ziwei LIN ; Lawrence Siu Chun LAW ; Lorraine YONG ; Yi Song Terence LIEW ; Chew Kiat YEOH ; Ian MATHEWS ; Wei Ping Daniel CHOR ; Win Sen KUAN
Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 2021;50(11):818-826
INTRODUCTION:
Inappropriate attendances (IAs) to emergency departments (ED) create an unnecessary strain on healthcare systems. With decreased ED attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study postulates that there are less IAs compared to before the pandemic and identifies factors associated with IAs.
METHODS:
We performed a retrospective review of 29,267 patient presentations to a healthcare cluster in Singapore from 7 April 2020 to 1 June 2020, and 36,370 patients within a corresponding period in 2019. This time frame coincided with local COVID-19 lockdown measures. IAs were defined as patient presentations with no investigations required, with patients eventually discharged from the ED. IAs in the 2020 period during the pandemic were compared with 2019. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with IAs.
RESULTS:
There was a decrease in daily IAs in 2020 compared to 2019 (9.91±3.06 versus 24.96±5.92, P<0.001). IAs were more likely with self-referrals (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50-1.66) and walk-ins (aOR 4.96, 95% CI 4.59-5.36), and those diagnosed with non-specific headache (aOR 2.08, 95% CI 1.85-2.34), or non-specific low back pain (aOR 1.28, 95% CI 1.15-1.42). IAs were less likely in 2020 compared to 2019 (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.65-0.71) and older patients (aOR 0.79 each 10 years, 95% CI 0.78-0.80).
CONCLUSION
ED IAs decreased during COVID-19. The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to examine factors associated with IAs.
COVID-19
;
Communicable Disease Control
;
Emergency Service, Hospital
;
Humans
;
Pandemics
;
Retrospective Studies
;
SARS-CoV-2
2.Comparison of virtual and in-person simulations for sepsis and trauma resuscitation training in Singapore: a randomized controlled trial
Matthew Jian Wen LOW ; Gene Wai Han CHAN ; Zisheng LI ; Yiwen KOH ; Chi Loong JEN ; Zi Yao LEE ; Lenard Tai Win CHENG
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions 2024;21(1):33-
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare cognitive, non-cognitive, and overall learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation skills in novices with virtual patient simulation (VPS) versus in-person simulation (IPS).
Methods:
A randomized controlled trial was conducted on junior doctors in 1 emergency department from January to December 2022, comparing 70 minutes of VPS (n=19) versus IPS (n=21) in sepsis and trauma resuscitation. Using the nominal group technique, we created skills assessment checklists and determined Bloom’s taxonomy domains for each checklist item. Two blinded raters observed participants leading 1 sepsis and 1 trauma resuscitation simulation. Satisfaction was measured using the Student Satisfaction with Learning Scale (SSLS). The SSLS and checklist scores were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and 2-tailed t-test respectively.
Results:
For sepsis, there was no significant difference between VPS and IPS in overall scores (2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 5.4; Cohen’s d=0.38), as well as in items that were cognitive (1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to 3.7) and not only cognitive (0.9; 95% CI, -0.4 to 2.2). Likewise, for trauma, there was no significant difference in overall scores (-0.9; 95% CI, -4.1 to 2.3; Cohen’s d=0.19), as well as in items that were cognitive (-0.3; 95% CI, -2.8 to 2.1) and not only cognitive (-0.6; 95% CI, -2.4 to 1.3). The median SSLS scores were lower with VPS than with IPS (-3.0; 95% CI, -1.0 to -5.0).
Conclusion
For novices, there were no major differences in overall and non-cognitive learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation between VPS and IPS. Learners were more satisfied with IPS than with VPS (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05201950).
3.Comparison of virtual and in-person simulations for sepsis and trauma resuscitation training in Singapore: a randomized controlled trial
Matthew Jian Wen LOW ; Gene Wai Han CHAN ; Zisheng LI ; Yiwen KOH ; Chi Loong JEN ; Zi Yao LEE ; Lenard Tai Win CHENG
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions 2024;21(1):33-
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare cognitive, non-cognitive, and overall learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation skills in novices with virtual patient simulation (VPS) versus in-person simulation (IPS).
Methods:
A randomized controlled trial was conducted on junior doctors in 1 emergency department from January to December 2022, comparing 70 minutes of VPS (n=19) versus IPS (n=21) in sepsis and trauma resuscitation. Using the nominal group technique, we created skills assessment checklists and determined Bloom’s taxonomy domains for each checklist item. Two blinded raters observed participants leading 1 sepsis and 1 trauma resuscitation simulation. Satisfaction was measured using the Student Satisfaction with Learning Scale (SSLS). The SSLS and checklist scores were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and 2-tailed t-test respectively.
Results:
For sepsis, there was no significant difference between VPS and IPS in overall scores (2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 5.4; Cohen’s d=0.38), as well as in items that were cognitive (1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to 3.7) and not only cognitive (0.9; 95% CI, -0.4 to 2.2). Likewise, for trauma, there was no significant difference in overall scores (-0.9; 95% CI, -4.1 to 2.3; Cohen’s d=0.19), as well as in items that were cognitive (-0.3; 95% CI, -2.8 to 2.1) and not only cognitive (-0.6; 95% CI, -2.4 to 1.3). The median SSLS scores were lower with VPS than with IPS (-3.0; 95% CI, -1.0 to -5.0).
Conclusion
For novices, there were no major differences in overall and non-cognitive learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation between VPS and IPS. Learners were more satisfied with IPS than with VPS (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05201950).
4.Comparison of virtual and in-person simulations for sepsis and trauma resuscitation training in Singapore: a randomized controlled trial
Matthew Jian Wen LOW ; Gene Wai Han CHAN ; Zisheng LI ; Yiwen KOH ; Chi Loong JEN ; Zi Yao LEE ; Lenard Tai Win CHENG
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions 2024;21(1):33-
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare cognitive, non-cognitive, and overall learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation skills in novices with virtual patient simulation (VPS) versus in-person simulation (IPS).
Methods:
A randomized controlled trial was conducted on junior doctors in 1 emergency department from January to December 2022, comparing 70 minutes of VPS (n=19) versus IPS (n=21) in sepsis and trauma resuscitation. Using the nominal group technique, we created skills assessment checklists and determined Bloom’s taxonomy domains for each checklist item. Two blinded raters observed participants leading 1 sepsis and 1 trauma resuscitation simulation. Satisfaction was measured using the Student Satisfaction with Learning Scale (SSLS). The SSLS and checklist scores were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and 2-tailed t-test respectively.
Results:
For sepsis, there was no significant difference between VPS and IPS in overall scores (2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 5.4; Cohen’s d=0.38), as well as in items that were cognitive (1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to 3.7) and not only cognitive (0.9; 95% CI, -0.4 to 2.2). Likewise, for trauma, there was no significant difference in overall scores (-0.9; 95% CI, -4.1 to 2.3; Cohen’s d=0.19), as well as in items that were cognitive (-0.3; 95% CI, -2.8 to 2.1) and not only cognitive (-0.6; 95% CI, -2.4 to 1.3). The median SSLS scores were lower with VPS than with IPS (-3.0; 95% CI, -1.0 to -5.0).
Conclusion
For novices, there were no major differences in overall and non-cognitive learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation between VPS and IPS. Learners were more satisfied with IPS than with VPS (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05201950).