ArticleHCA healthcare journal of medicine2022
Protective Equipment Preparedness and Accessibility: A Survey of Medical Trainees.
Article in HCA healthcare journal of medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: After being removed from patient care due to equipment shortages, medical students and new residents around the United States are returning to clinical medicine/acute care settings as the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic continues. We hypothesize that trainees returned with increased preparedness and had better access to and knowledge of personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods: Anonymous online surveys were distributed via snowball sampling to medical students and residents performing clinical duties in the United States. Respondents completed self-assessments for preparedness regarding PPE use, access to PPE and COVID-19 testing, and access to COVID-19 positive patients. Group comparisons were conducted using chi-square analysis and the Kruskal Wallis rank sum test. Multivariate ordinary least squares regression analysis was used to estimate the relationship between feeling prepared and other variables. Results: A total of 194 trainees (63 year 3 [MS3] medical students, 95 year 4 [MS4] medical students, and 36 year 1 [PGY1] postgraduates]) completed the survey. Collectively, 27% provided their own PPE on ≥ 1 rotation, 27% did not know how/where to obtain PPE, 36% did not know how/where to get tested, and 57% were never asked to demonstrate proficiency with PPE. In-person training was reported at 31.3% prior to 2020, which decreased to 21% during 2020. Mask-fit testing decreased from 83.1% to 56.9%. Online video lectures on PPE training increased from 52% to 80%. The mean (±SD) preparedness for return to clinical duty for MS3 students was 3.4/5 (±1.0), for MS4 students was 3.8/5 (±.90), and for PGY1 residents was 4.1/5(± .89) ( Conclusion: Survey respondents felt prepared by their institutions to return to clinical duties during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was some apprehension about knowledge of or access to PPE and COVID-19 testing. The confidence in the ability to don/doff PPE was the main factor associated with increased feelings of preparedness. While in-person training decreased from pre-2020 to during 2020, an increase of in-person training with supervised donning and doffing provides one potential avenue of further increasing the preparedness of trainees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.