Search

COVID 19 struck us all like a bolt of lightning and for the past 10 months, it has tested our resilience, agility, creativity, and adaptability in all aspects of our lives and work. Simulation centers and simulation-based educational programs have not been spared. Rather than wait for the pandemic to be over before commencing operations and training, we have been actively looking at programs, reviewing alternative methods such as e-learning, use of virtual learning platforms, decentralization of training using in situ simulation (ISS) modeling, partnerships with relevant clinical departments, cross-training of staff to attain useful secondary skills, and many other alternatives and substitutes. It has been an eye-opening journey as we maximize our staff's talent and potential in new adoptions and stretching our goals beyond what we deemed was possible. This paper shares perspectives from simulation centers; The SingHealth Duke NUS Institute of Medical Simulation which is integrated with an Academic Medical Center in Singapore, The Robert and Dorothy Rector Clinical Skills and Simulation Center, which is integrated with Thomas Jefferson University, Oakhill Emergency Department, Florida State University Emergency Medicine Program, Florida, USA and The Wellington Regional Simulation and skills center. It describes the experiences from the time when COVID 19 first struck countries around the world to the current state whereby the simulation centers have stWWarting functioning in their “new norm.” These centers were representative examples of those in countries which had extremely heavy (USA), moderate (Singapore) as well as light (New Zealand) load of COVID 19 cases in the nation. Whichever categories these centers were in, they all faced disruption and had to make the necessary adjustments, aligning with national policies and advisories. As there is no existing tried and tested model for the running of a simulation center during an infectious disease pandemic, this can serve as a landmark reference paper, as we continue to fine-tune and prepare for the next new, emerging infectious disease or crisis.

COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns for a number of strategical social interactions. From quarantines and social distancing to vaccination and geopolitics, the cooperation or even the coordination of efforts has been challenging, as governments, economic sector, institutions, and individuals, often have conflicting interests. Game theory, which is a mathematical tool extensively used in order to determine the outcomes of strategical interactions, has been applied to a number of issues arising from the pandemic. In this paper, 60 publications are analyzed to identify the key contributions of game theory to addressing COVID-19. First, 10 keywords-topic are chosen and each publication is examined to consider if it deals with these topics. Then R package "igraph" and cluster Louvain are used in order to group the papers to 3 clusters. The results indicate that there is a temporal variation in the topics examined. In the beginning the main concern has been coupling the modelling of the transmission of the virus with social distancing responses from the public and quarantining policy. Then the economic implications of the pandemic drew the attention and finally the application of the vaccination campaigns and the cooperation of the individuals with vaccination guidelines. The paper targets on bridging the gap between game theorists and epidemiologists, illustrating how modelling agents interactions can improve responses. The clusters created can help researchers identify groups of problems that can be addressed jointly, using similar approaches. The analysis indicates that game theory can reveal social aspects that can improve the responses to future emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID 19 struck us all like a bolt of lightning and for the past 10 months, it has tested our resilience, agility, creativity, and adaptability in all aspects of our lives and work. Simulation centers and simulation-based educational programs have not been spared. Rather than wait for the pandemic to be over before commencing operations and training, we have been actively looking at programs, reviewing alternative methods such as e-learning, use of virtual learning platforms, decentralization of training using in situ simulation (ISS) modeling, partnerships with relevant clinical departments, cross-training of staff to attain useful secondary skills, and many other alternatives and substitutes. It has been an eye-opening journey as we maximize our staff's talent and potential in new adoptions and stretching our goals beyond what we deemed was possible. This paper shares perspectives from simulation centers; The SingHealth Duke NUS Institute of Medical Simulation which is integrated with an Academic Medical Center in Singapore, The Robert and Dorothy Rector Clinical Skills and Simulation Center, which is integrated with Thomas Jefferson University, Oakhill Emergency Department, Florida State University Emergency Medicine Program, Florida, USA and The Wellington Regional Simulation and skills center. It describes the experiences from the time when COVID 19 first struck countries around the world to the current state whereby the simulation centers have stWWarting functioning in their "new norm." These centers were representative examples of those in countries which had extremely heavy (USA), moderate (Singapore) as well as light (New Zealand) load of COVID 19 cases in the nation. Whichever categories these centers were in, they all faced disruption and had to make the necessary adjustments, aligning with national policies and advisories. As there is no existing tried and tested model for the running of a simulation center during an infectious disease pandemic, this can serve as a landmark reference paper, as we continue to fine-tune and prepare for the next new, emerging infectious disease or crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This assignment helps students understand the interpersonal impact of COVID-19 on their lives. Specifically, this assignment can be used as a paper or as a set of discussion questions to illuminate the impact of COVID-19 on people's identities and relationships, as viewed from the perspective of multiple theories and concepts including uncertainty reduction, how to cope with expectancy violations, and relational maintenance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What started as a cluster of patients with a mysterious respiratory illness in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, was later determined to be coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel Betacoronavirus, was subsequently isolated as the causative agent. SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted by respiratory droplets and fomites and presents clinically with fever, fatigue, myalgias, conjunctivitis, anosmia, dysgeusia, sore throat, nasal congestion, cough, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea. In most critical cases, symptoms can escalate into acute respiratory distress syndrome accompanied by a runaway inflammatory cytokine response and multiorgan failure. As of this article's publication date, COVID-19 has spread to approximately 200 countries and territories, with over 4.3 million infections and more than 290,000 deaths as it has escalated into a global pandemic. Public health concerns mount as the situation evolves with an increasing number of infection hotspots around the globe. New information about the virus is emerging just as rapidly. This has led to the prompt development of clinical patient risk stratification tools to aid in determining the need for testing, isolation, monitoring, ventilator support, and disposition. COVID-19 spread is rapid, including imported cases in travelers, cases among close contacts of known infected individuals, and community-acquired cases without a readily identifiable source of infection. Critical shortages of personal protective equipment and ventilators are compounding the stress on overburdened healthcare systems. The continued challenges of social distancing, containment, isolation, and surge capacity in already stressed hospitals, clinics, and emergency departments have led to a swell in technologically-assisted care delivery strategies, such as telemedicine and web-based triage. As the race to develop an effective vaccine intensifies, several clinical trials of antivirals and immune modulators are underway, though no reliable COVID-19-specific therapeutics (inclusive of some potentially effective single and multi-drug regimens) have been identified as of yet. With many nations and regions declaring a state of emergency, unprecedented quarantine, social distancing, and border closing efforts are underway. Implementation of social and physical isolation measures has caused sudden and profound economic hardship, with marked decreases in global trade and local small business activity alike, and full ramifications likely yet to be felt. Current state-of-science, mitigation strategies, possible therapies, ethical considerations for healthcare workers and policymakers, as well as lessons learned for this evolving global threat and the eventual return to a "new normal" are discussed in this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Telemedicine use surged during COVID-19, and a significant amount of recent research has relied solely on online surveys to assess patient perceptions. However, these surveys may be biased since they require an internet connection and digital literacy skills. We compare local perceptions of telemedicine visits in rural areas across two methods of data collection: online-only vs. paper surveys. We collected 100 paper and 108 online surveys in two rural counties with a total population of 10,000. The results show that significant differences exist in the demographics of people completing each type of survey and in the perceptions of telemedicine, with paper-based respondents generally demonstrating a higher degree of confidence in telemedicine. Ordered logistic regressions controlling for potentially influential underlying demographic characteristics (income, hours worked, and presence of children) show that paper-based respondents tend to have higher opinions of telemedicine, but that overall levels of comfort are similar across survey types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]