Category Archives: COVID-19

Virtual Recruitment for Community-Engaged Qualitative Research During COVID-19

Marie Balfour, BA, Medical College of Wisconsin 
Karna Baraboo, BA, Medical College of Wisconsin

Elise Kahn, BS, Medical College of Wisconsin 
William Mead-Davies, BS, Medical College of Wisconsin

Annie Tuman, BA, Medical College of Wisconsin 
Benjamin Wrucke, BS, Medical College of Wisconsin (Equal Contribution)

Rebecca Bernstein, MD, MS Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin b

Corresponding Author:  Marie Balfour, BA 

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health disparities across many communities in
the United States, and the call for community-engaged research has never been greater [1,2].
However, the minimization of in-person interaction has forced medical researchers to adjust their
methods of engagement significantly [3]. As a group of community-engaged medical student
researchers, we encountered several challenges and developed solutions as we adjusted to virtual
recruitment of research participants for qualitative research.

  
Challenge 1: BUILDING TRUST  

One barrier to virtual recruitment was establishing trust with research participants. Our
studies involved sensitive topics such as weight, aging, food insecurity, addiction and finances.
Originally, many of us planned to spend time in clinics, homeless shelters, and other community
sites to engage with potential participants and develop a sense of familiarity. Without this
opportunity, most participants did not see our faces until the virtual interview which may have
affected who was willing to participate. 


Solutions implemented: To compensate for the loss of in-person recruitment, many of us
utilized intermediaries such as physicians, mentors, caseworkers, school administrators, and
clinical administrators to communicate with potential participants. This strategy helped to
generate participant trust. In one project that recruited medical professionals, participant
invitations that did not include an intermediary led to a 40 percent participation rate, while
invitations including a faculty mentor or previous participant recommendation yielded
participation rates of 64 and 80 percent, respectively.  We noted that trust and familiarity gained
by introductions and recommendations from intermediaries led to an increased likelihood of
participation.  


Although effective, this strategy also presented challenges. Relying on intermediaries for
recruitment placed a greater burden on our community partners, who were asked to complete
additional tasks. This also may have slowed the research process because the schedule of the
intermediary dictated recruitment. Finally, trust was placed on the intermediary to recruit a
representative sample which may have introduced sampling bias.


Recommendations: 
● All community engagement projects should have a network of intermediaries who have
established trust with participants prior to beginning research. 
● Community engagement projects conducted during COVID-19 require enhanced
relationships with these networks in order to increase participation rates and create more
natural interactions. 

Challenge 2: LEVERAGING RECRUITMENT TECHNOLOGY  
At the outset of many of our projects, we used a common outreach method (such as
email) for all subjects. Due to virtual recruitment constraints and variable subject familiarity with
technology, many of us found that personalizing outreach methods led to more successful
participant engagement and recruitment.  

Solutions Implemented: Virtual recruitment proved to be increasingly population-
dependent and customized. Those in academic settings were more active on email and were
familiar with online meeting platforms. In contrast, working parents and senior groups were

more receptive to phone calls. The likelihood of phone pick-up was improved by masking
unfamiliar phone numbers and displaying familiar clinic numbers with a telephone number
masking application (e.g. Doximity Dialer). In one study, school administrators sent study
recruitment information through a specialized school-specific parent interface, allowing
recruitment materials to reach just over 1,800 families. Without utilizing these population-
specific avenues, recruitment and resource dissemination would have been significantly
impacted.  

Adding new strategies to improve virtual recruitment outcomes came with significant
challenges.  Submitting IRB amendments specifying recruitment protocol changes delayed
project benchmarks. Additionally, we recognize the choice of recruitment technology might
influence the study population. For example, benefits of online meeting platforms were most
apparent when the recruitment pool consisted of educated professionals frequently using these
platforms. Email-based recruitment methods also could have altered study outcomes, by limiting
participants to those with access to the Internet. 

 Recommendations:  
● Personalize outreach methods to a study population. 
● Administer communication preferences survey during recruitment in order to confirm
preferred communication method. 
● Begin recruitment using multiple methods in order to efficiently eliminate unsuccessful
methods. 
   

CONCLUSION  

Future research conducted remotely should be guided by themes of building trust and
leveraging recruitment technologies. While we focused on recruitment, it is important to
acknowledge the impact that COVID-19 will have on project outcomes. Given that our studies
included interviews, participants’ responses typically reflected their current situation, many of
which had been altered by COVID-19.  
   

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful for the support of Dr. Leslie Ruffalo and Dr. Bryan Johnston from the
Department of Family and Community Medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin. Research
reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute On Aging of the National
Institutes of Health under Award Number T35AG029793, the Department of Family and
Community Medicine at MCW, and the Wisconsin Medical Society. The content is solely the
responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of these
entities. 
 

REFERENCES 

  1. Tapp, Hazel. The Changing Face of Primary Care Research and Practice-Based Research
    Networks (PBRNs) in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Am Board Fam Med. 2020;33(5)645-
    649 
  2. Krouse, Helene J. COVID-19 and the Widening Gap in Health Inequity. Otolaryngol.
    Head Neck Surg. 2020;163(1)65-66 
  3. Ratneswaren, Anenta. The importance of community and patient involvement in COVID-
    19 research. Clin Med (Lond). 2020;20(4)120-122

Another Uncommon Ethical Dilemma We Must Now Consider

Alison Huffstetler, MD

Claudia Allen, PhD, JD

The myriad challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic are immense. We face shortages in personal protective equipment, brisk reallocation of clinicians, management of novel telehealth visits, and a looming increase in physician burnout. The family medicine community has engaged in remarkable efforts to ensure patients continue to receive necessary care. But as the pandemic begins to impact places like Washington, DC,  two imminent ethical questions arise: How will we balance care for the urban underserved of DC and the political figures, both of whom are sure to be affected by COVID-19? And how will we maintain professionalism while caring for our own medical colleagues?

Boris Johnson, Prime Minster of the UK, was admitted to the intensive care unit at St Thomas’s Hospital in London on April 5th.1 On the day of Johnsons’ ICU admission, there were 799 ICU beds available in the UK but 9,646 were needed.2 According to his physicians, Johnson clearly needed ICU-level care, but what about the other 8,850 patients who also needed ICU-level care? What ethical considerations exist when caring for high-powered officials? And even closer to home, how will we responsibly care for our colleagues, our nurses, and our families?

We will not presume to have a definitive answer, nor will we be able to solve the ventilator crisis in this post. But we will offer an evidence-based approach to the ethics of caring for very important patients (VIPs). 

  1. First, do no harm. Avoid the trap of protecting the VIP from an invasive or uncomfortable treatment if it is the standard of care. In the past, VIPs have suffered from lapses in quality care due to poor adherence to standards.3 Conversely, resist the urge to bend the rules toward overuse and avoid unnecessary tests, inappropriate medications, or delayed discharge.4 
  2. Acknowledge the situation. Opt for an up-front conversation with VIPs. Let the patient and family know that you will treat them as you treat all of your patients. Recognize that your feelings and decision making may be affected by the VIPs status. As a human reminder, it is ok (and warranted!) to show empathy for your friends, colleagues, and public figures. However, remind yourself that decisions should be rooted in the clinical picture and evidence base.
  3. Keep the right team in place. VIPs, families, or hospital staff might place pressure for a more senior, administrator-clinician to care for the VIP. This is often known as “chairman syndrome,” which refers to a demand to have care from the department chair, an individual who may be removed from frequent clinical care. Instead, the patient should be cared for by the team at the appropriate level of care and with the most expertise. Residents should not be removed from these teams as they consistently care for hospitalized patients and are equipped with tools to remain up to date on management. Do not escalate care without the appropriate clinical indications.5 
  4. Thoughtfully manage communication. There are two concepts here. First, ensure that you are speaking with the VIP and family routinely and honestly; aim to maintain an open line of communication with necessary boundaries. Second, patient case discussions and management decisions should only take place with direct team members. Consider a hospital pseudonym that can be used during verbal discussions and in the chart/nursing boards to reduce the likelihood of a confidentiality breech.
  5. Enlist the team to maintain these standards. It is not possible to avoid an effect on our mentality as we care for a patient who is prominent or personally close to us. What we can do is acknowledge the potential for confusing feelings, clarify them in our own minds by putting them into words, and enlisting the whole team to hold one another accountable. Give the whole team the task of keeping an eye on whether professional standards are being adhered to, and permission to hold one another accountable when anyone notices standards slipping.

We face unprecedented numbers of critically ill patients in the hospital. Family physicians are taking this opportunity to expand our presence and provide excellent care to patients. These patients will begin to include other physicians, administrators, hospital staff, friends, and well-known figures. We argue all of these are VIPs and all deserve our attention. Take time now to plan for and discuss what your team will do when caring for one another. Anticipate that these plans will change and acknowledge flexibility in the plan. Our patients will more equitably benefit from the strategies we put into place today. 

References

  1. Booth W, Adam K. Boris Johnson heads into second night in intensive care unit. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/boris-johnson-receives-oxygen-support-as-he-battles-covid-19/2020/04/07/0f21fa86-7885-11ea-a311-adb1344719a9_story.html. Published April 7, 2020. Accessed April 8, 2020.
  2. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.| COVID-19 Projections. https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections. Accessed April 8, 2020.
  3. Lerner BH. Revisiting the death of Eleanor Roosevelt: was the diagnosis of tuberculosis missed? Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Off J Int Union Tuberc Lung Dis. 2001;5(12):1080-1085.
  4. Allen-Dicker J, Auerbach A, Herzig SJ. Perceived safety and value of inpatient “very important person” services. J Hosp Med. 2017;12(3):177-179. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2701
  5. Guzman JA, Sasidhar M, Stoller JK. Caring for VIPs: nine principles. Cleve Clin J Med. 2011;78(2):90-94. https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.78a.10113

 

Four Things Medical Educators Are Doing to Adapt to COVID-19

By Vince Munoz, STFM

While most COVID-19 news coverage has centered around clinical and systemic challenges in the American health care system, medical education has also been disrupted. To help disseminate actionable information as quickly as possible, we’ve asked educators on our member forum how they’re adapting their teaching practices to clinical considerations regarding the novel coronavirus. Here’s what some of them had to say: 

1.) We have sent our M4 students to work (for elective credit) at the local health department. They perform surveillance of COVID-19 cases, educate the public via online communications, and help the health department trace pockets where COVID is located. They work from the health department headquarters under the supervision of an MD infectious disease epidemiologist. The objectives are not yet written due to the nature of this abrupt change. This is a way to expand our base for managing this disease.

 – Stuart Goldman MD, Chair of Family Medicine, Rosalind Franklin University 

2.) I’m a Faculty at a family medicine residency and M3M4 clerkship director.  My work is shifting my attention to telehealth, as we are looking hard at ways to protect our residents and students.  AAMC has dropped the news to move all medical education including M3 and M4 out of the clinical arena. I’m looking for ways to continue some aspects of their curriculum via telehealth. On the clinic side, we’re trying to throw together a structure for residents to move to telemedicine.

Joy Shen-Wagner MD FAAFP, Clerkship Director and FM POCUS Director, University of South Carolina SOM Greenville/Prisma Health 

3.) I created a learning/discussion module that residents or medical students can work on virtually or individually.  It has readings about how the Coronavirus pandemic is worsened by inequality and health disparities (endangering everyone).  The activity promotes conversation around what kind of policies could be put into action to improve public health and reduce risk for all Americans.  I think this is a moment when COVID is making us realize how inequality doesn’t only hurt the poor. In addressing the current pandemic there are opportunities for long lasting change (like the recent bill for paid sick leave).

Jen Flament, Swedish Cherry Hill Family Medicine Residency Faculty, Swedish Medical Center/Cherry Hill 

4.) Students are doing telemedicine visits – they get history, pend orders, present to attending while the patient watches, and the student then writes notes. Some attendings observe the entire visit, write their note as the visit progresses and have a great feedback/teaching opportunity.

We also have students help patients transition to telemedicine visits. We have done very little telemedicine here, so we have a steep learning curve for our patients. Some of our students have called patients to educate them about telemedicine, discuss doing their upcoming visit that way, help them load zoom onto their devices, and problem solving microphone function. The loading/problem solving step is taking a lot of time and students are better at walking patients through that than any one in our offices!​

Robert Hatch, Director of Medical Student Education, University of Florida