ABSTRACT #11

MEDICAL EDUCATION IN THE POST-COVID ERA: ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF VIRTUAL VS IN-PERSON EDUCATION IN INTERNAL MEDICINE RESIDENTS AND FACULTY

Ricardo Ortiz

PURPOSE AND GOALS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, graduate medical education underwent a paradigm shift due to the disruption of in-person didactics. Virtual tools and techniques provided an alternative to delivering medical education, which have their own advantages but also pose unique challenges. The purpose of this study is to describe perceptions and attitudes about in-person versus virtual medical education among Internal Medicine residents and faculty in a residency program.

METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Two different surveys, one for residents and one for faculty, adapted from Tsyrulnik et al were distributed to all internal medicine residents and faculty at Mount Sinai West/ Morningside. A unique link was created for each subject and their responses were recorded using Microsoft FormsTM.

EVALUATION PLAN: This is an observational study with the aim to describe perceptions and attitudes of Internal Medicine residents and faculty, therefore, the evaluation plan was not deemed necessary.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: Resident response rate was 30% and faculty response rate was (9%). Most of the participants in the resident group were PGY-1 (53%). At least 49% of the participants had prior experience with virtual didactics before starting residency. 46% were less likely to participate in virtual didactics. Both groups perceived virtual didactics as less conducive compared to in-person didactics (64% in both groups). 55% of residents reported less attention to virtual didactics. Engagement was perceived as lower by 56% of the faculty. Use of electronic devices for professional and non-professional activities was higher with virtual didactics (62% and 51% respectively) in the resident group. Engagement in unrelated professional activities was the most common activity reported by both groups (71.1% in the resident group and 76% in the faculty group). 40% of the faculty group would be more likely to volunteer to provide virtual lectures compared to in-person. 64% of residents felt that the change to virtual didactics had a positive impact on their quality of life. Both groups missed the social interactions related to in-person didactics (71% in the resident group and 76% in the faculty group).

REFLECTIVE CRITIQUE: The results show that virtual didactics as less conducive compared to in-person, making them more prone to distractions. The impact in the quality of education and retention of information are unknown. These results also poise the challenge of develoving techniques that could improve attention and engagement in the virtual format. A limitation of this study is the small sample size, and a confounding factor is that the study population have their didactics structured in an academic half-day format, which may also play a role in resident’s perceptions. Both limitations could be mitigated by conducting a similar study with residents and faculty from all the Internal Medicine programs at Mount Sinai, which have different didactics structure.