Search

Abstract Background The worldwide market for continuing medical education (CME) was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which precipitated an increase in web-based CME course attendance. Virtual education methods may be effective for engaging learners and changing behaviors. However, more information is needed about physician preferences for in-person vs. livestreamed CME courses in the postpandemic era. Because of the paucity of data regarding this topic, the current study was designed to evaluate CME participant characteristics, preferences, engagement, and satisfaction with traditional in-person vs. virtual educational methods. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed of attendees of two large internal medicine CME courses held in 2021. Both CME courses were offered via in-person and livestream options, and were taught by Mayo Clinic content experts. Participants, who consisted of practicing physicians seeking CME, completed a 41-question survey after CME course completion. Statistical comparisons were performed by using Fisher exact tests for all survey items, except for those with ordinal response sets, which were compared with Cochran-Armitage trend tests. Results A total of 146 participants completed the survey (response rate, 30.2%). Among the 77 respondents who attended in-person courses, the most frequent reasons indicated were the opportunity to travel (66%) and collaboration/networking with others (25%). Among the 68 respondents who attended the livestream courses, the most frequent reasons indicated included COVID-19–related concerns (65%), convenience (46%), and travel costs (34%). The percentage of respondents who indicated that they would choose the same mode of attendance if given the option again was higher for those who attended in person than for those who attended via livestream (91% vs. 65%, P

Ramadan is the Islamic holy month when Muslims around the world fast from dawn to sunset. This 30-day pattern of intermittent diurnal fasting can have a significant physiologic impact on the body. Importantly, oral intake is forbidden during this time, and many patients do not wish to take medications. From a clinical perspective, this potentially impacts healthcare delivery and chronic disease states. Despite these important changes, awareness of individual patient practices remains limited among healthcare providers in North America, which may worsen health disparities in Muslim patients. A fundamental understanding of the cultural and physiological implications of fasting during Ramadan can improve cultural competence and patient outcomes. In this paper, we review the physiologic changes during fasting, medical exemptions to fasting, and special considerations for the care of Muslim patients with chronic conditions who may fast during Ramadan.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a valuable clinical tool used at the patient bedside to rapidly assess a wide variety of symptoms and problems which would otherwise take hours or even days. Though it has become the standard of care in Emergency Medicine and is becoming so in hospital internal medicine, less uptake has been appreciated in the outpatient setting despite reported interest from clinicians practicing there. A number of common barriers have been cited to explain this gap in use, which usually include access to equipment, mentorship, and time. In this review we present a proposed framework for clinicians who have an interest in implementing POCUS in their outpatient practice which we hope can mitigate some of these barriers and provide a more streamlined pathway to their desired goals.

Objective: To study the impact of a 60-day pilot of an innovative virtual-care model using general internal medicine physicians and nurses to respond rapidly to more than 1200 coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-positive nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction tests. Patients and Methods: The current study was approved by the Mayo Clinic COVID-19 Research Committee and the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. The data for all SARS-CoV-2–positive patients treated by our team were entered into a prospectively maintained internal research electronic data capture database. We searched this database retrospectively for the first 60 days of our program (March 23, 2020 to May 22, 2020). The data included basic deidentified demographics; symptoms at intake into the program; date of symptom onset; risk factors; location; and outcomes including hospitalization, admission to intensive care unit, and death. Results: Patients were contacted, on average, 6.3 hours after their results became available. There was a total of 138 ED visits. Of these, 40% were admitted to the hospital, with 36% of those admitted requiring intensive care unit level of care. Of the 849 patients in this sample, there were only 2 deaths (0.23%) at 60 days. Conclusion: Our innovative multidisciplinary COVID team provided excellent clinical care for patients with COVID, with a very low mortality rate compared with the national average. Although data are not available on a national scale for time to contact patient, our team was able to contact patients within the established recommendation for contact within 48 hours of testing, which is optimal.

Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to assess and describe the severity of symptoms reported by Covid-19 positive patients who vaped (smoked e-cigarettes) when compared to those who did not vape or smoke at the time of the diagnosis of Covid-19. Methods: Patients from this study are from a well-characterized patient cohort collected at Mayo Clinic between March 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021; with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis defined as a positive result on reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays from nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Among the 1734 eligible patients, 289 patients reported current vaping. The cohort of vapers (N = 289) was age and gender matched to 1445 covid-19 positive patients who did not vape. The data analyzed included: date of birth, gender, ethnicity, race, marital status, as well as lifestyle history such as vaping and smoking and reported covid-19 symptoms experienced. Results: A logistic regression analysis was performed separately for each symptom using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance estimates in order to account for the 1:5 age, sex, and race matched set study design. Patients who vaped and developed Covid-19 infection were more likely to have chest pain or tightness (16% vs 10%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .005), chills (25% vs 19%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .0016), myalgia (39% vs 32%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .004), headaches (49% vs 41% vapers vs non vapers, P = .026), anosmia/dysgeusia (37% vs 30%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .009), nausea/vomiting/abdominal pain (16% vs 10%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .003), diarrhea (16% vs 10%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .004), and non-severe light-headedness (16% vs 9%, vapers vs non vapers, P

Objective Increasing adoption of social media have revolutionized communications between individuals, groups, and organizations This research study was designed to assess the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of internal medicine physicians’ awareness and engagement with social media (sometimes referred to as #SoMe) within the digital landscape of healthcare delivery. Methods An audience-response survey focused on social media “ Social media in Healthcare: Physician Survey ,” was administered during the “A Systematic Approach to Medically Unexplained Symptoms” continuing medical education conference. The Conference took place between August 22, 2019 and August 24, 2019. Data was collected on August 23, 2019. A range of 103 (59.5%) to 112 (64.7%) of the total 173 attendees participated in this cross-sectional audience-response survey, depending on the questions answered. Results Most responders were between the ages of 35 and 65 years (79.6%) and female (60.2%). A majority of responders were aware of social media terminology (88.7%), and many had used it personally (46.7%), but only 12% knew how to use social media to search medical topics, 18% used it to network professionally and most (68.9%) had a distrust of social media when it came to the protection of their privacy or their patients’ privacy. Overall, about 29.6% indicated an interest in future continued medical education focused on social media (and 27.4% were neutral). Conclusions Approximately half of the responders used social media but far less engaged its platforms for professional use likely due to privacy related concerns. Distance from academic institutions, where professional social media use is more common likely, played a role in aversion. Awareness of social media’s role in healthcare has increased among physicians in practice, however their participation and knowledge of opportunities remains limited.