METHODS: COPT was a teaching strategy wherein, students were taught physiology using cases and critical thinking questions. Three batches of undergraduate medical students (n = 434) served as the experimental groups to whom COPT was incorporated in the third block (teaching unit) of Physiology curriculum and one batch (n = 149) served as the control group to whom COPT was not incorporated. The experimental group of students were trained to answer clinically oriented questions whereas the control group of students were not trained. Both the group of students undertook a block exam which consisted of clinically oriented questions and recall questions, at the end of each block.
RESULTS: Comparison of pre-COPT and post-COPT essay exam scores of experimental group of students revealed that the post-COPT scores were significantly higher compared to the pre-COPT scores. Comparison of post-COPT essay exam scores of the experimental group and control group of students revealed that the experimental group of students performed better compared to the control group. Feedback from the students indicated that they preferred COPT to didactic lectures.
CONCLUSION: The study supports the fact that assessment and teaching patterns should fall in line with each other as proved by the better performance of the experimental group of students compared to the control group. COPT was also found to be a useful adjunct to didactic lectures in teaching physiology.
METHODS: Five SIMBA sessions were conducted between May and August 2020. Each session included simulation of scenarios and interactive discussion. Participants' self-reported confidence, acceptance, and relevance of the simulated cases were measured.
RESULTS: Significant improvement was observed in participants' self-reported confidence (overall n = 204, p<0.001; adrenal n = 33, p<0.001; thyroid n = 37, p<0.001; pituitary n = 79, p<0.001; inflammatory bowel disease n = 17, p<0.001; acute medicine n = 38, p<0.001). Participants reported improvements in clinical competencies: patient care 52.0% (n = 106/204), professionalism 30.9% (n = 63/204), knowledge on patient management 84.8% (n = 173/204), systems-based practice 48.0% (n = 98/204), practice-based learning 69.6% (n = 142/204) and communication skills 25.5% (n = 52/204).
CONCLUSION: SIMBA is a novel pedagogical virtual simulation-based learning model that improves clinicians' confidence in managing conditions across various specialties.
OBJECTIVES: Due to this discrepancy between the academic curriculum and the skills needed in the healthcare industry, the objectives of this study are to define the career pathway for eHealth professions and identify the challenges experienced by academic institutions and the industry in describing digital health professionals.
METHODS: We elicited qualitative data by conducting six focus groups with individuals from different professional backgrounds, including healthcare workers, information managers, computer sciences professionals, and workers in the revenue cycle who participated in a workshop on November 2-3, 2019, in Dubai. All focus group sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed, and participants were de-identified before analysis. An exploratory method was used to identify themes and subthemes. Saturation was reached when similar responses were found during the analysis. In this study, we found that respondents clearly defined eHealth career pathways based on criteria that included qualifications, experience, job scope, and competency. We also explored the challenges that the respondents encountered, including differences in the required skill sets and training and the need to standardize the academic curriculum across the GCC region, to recognize the various career pathways, and to develop local training programs. Additionally, country-specific projects have been initiated, such as the competency-based Digital Health framework, which was developed by the Saudi Commission of Healthcare Specialties (SCFHS) in 2018. Competency-based digital health frameworks generally include relevant job definitions, roles, and recommended competencies. Both the GCC taskforce and the Saudi studies capitalized on previous efforts by professional organizations, including Canada's Digital Health formerly known as (COACH), the U.S. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA), and the Health Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
RESULTS: In this study, we found that respondents defined eHealth career pathways based on different criteria such as: qualifications; various background of health and IT in the HI field; work experiences; job scope and competency. We also further explore the challenges that the respondents encountered which delineates four key aspects such as need of hybrid skills to manage the digital transformation, need of standardization of academic curriculum across GCC, recognition of the career pathways by the industry in order to open up career opportunity and career advancement, and availability of local training programs for up-skilling the current health workforce.
CONCLUSION: We believe that successful health digital transformation is not limited to technology advancement but requires an adaptive change in: the related competency-based frameworks, the organisation of work and career paths for eHealth professionals, and the development of educational programmes and joint degrees to equip clinicians with understanding of technology, and informaticians with understanding of healthcare. We anticipate that this work will be expanded and adopted by relevant professional and scientific bodies in the GCC region.
METHODS: We conducted a worldwide survey among physicians, who are actively involved in Ophthalmology-related education, between 3 and 14 April 2020. The expert survey, developed on the basis of literature search and focus group discussions, comprised 23 questions addressing the use of e-learning in Ophthalmology during the COVID-19 pandemic.
RESULTS: A total of 321 participants from both academic and non-academic institutions worldwide, with variable practice experience and expertise, completed the survey. Before the pandemic, the majority of participants used traditional training modalities, including lectures, grand rounds and journal clubs, and 48% did not use any e-learning. There was a statistically significant increase in the use of all e-learning alternatives during the pandemic (p