Non-clinical educational activities
A majority (62.3%) of participants reported an increase in didactic
educational activities and 65.7% reported that their program had
instituted a required educational curriculum (Table 2). Interestingly, a
significantly higher proportion of participants in high COVID-19 regions
reported an increase in didactic activities (p=0.011) and a required
curriculum (p=0.035). Most participants (86.9%) felt their department
utilized technology to good effect for educational activities, and again
this was higher among participants from high COVID-19 regions (95.4%
vs. 78.2%, p=0.011). Educational activities included participation in
collaborative multi-institutional educational efforts (61.7%) as well
as institution based education (62.3%). Tools utilized during social
distancing included Zoom & WebEx for lectures including collaborative
consortiums, resident lectures and journal clubs. Additional electronic
resources used included OtoSim, AAO courses, COCLIA, Headmirror podcasts
and online textbook reading.
With regard to conducting research, about one third of participants
(29.1%) reported a reduction in research activities, a third reported
no change, and a third reported an increase in research activity
(34.9%). A greater proportion of participants reported a reduction in
research activities if their research prior to the pandemic involved
recruitment of clinical subjects (71.4%) or laboratory-based research
(71.4%).
Most respondents felt that their education during the pandemic was
either extremely or very important (57%) or somewhat important
(30.3%), while 13% felt that their education was not so important
during the pandemic. This did not differ by training level (p=0.10), but
participants in high COVID-19 areas trended towards a stronger feeling
that their education was either extremely or very important (65.9% high
COVIDvs. 47.1% low COVID, p=0.072).
Despite acknowledging the importance of education, the majority (89.7%)
of respondents felt that their education and training had been
negatively impacted by the pandemic. In particular, two-thirds of
participants were concerned about receiving adequate surgical training.
Smaller proportions of participants expressed concern about receiving
adequate training in clinical decision making (42.9%) and educational
knowledge (34.3%). Concerns regarding adequate training did not
significantly differ by trainee level, however, there was a trend
towards fewer senior level trainees expressing concerns for adequate
training (Table 2). Notably, 29.1% (n=51) of participants expressed
concern in their ability to complete key indicator cases needed to
graduate, and these concerns were acknowledged similarly by both junior
(27.2%) and senior residents (39.2%, p=0.116, fellows excluded).
Participants in high COVID-19 regions reported less concern about
receiving adequate educational knowledge (23.8% vs. 44.8%, p=0.025)
and a trend towards less concern in receiving adequate training in
clinical decision making (32.9% vs. 52.9%, p=0.062) compared to
participants in low COVID-19 regions. These differences were not seen
when examining concerns regarding adequate surgical training.
Concerns regarding adequate educational knowledge were decreased (29.6%
vs. 65.2%) among participants who felt their program was able to
utilize technology well (p=0.003), though not significantly correlated
with whether a program had a required educational curriculum (p=0.250),
or participation in collaborative education effort (p=0.403). Use of
technology was not associated with concerns regarding adequate training
in clinical decision-making (p=0.199) or surgical training (p=0.690).