COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted face-to-face teaching in medical schools globally. The use of remote learning as an emergency measure has affected students, faculty, support staff, and administrators. The aim of this narrative review paper is to examine the challenges and opportunities faced by medical schools in implementing remote learning for basic science teaching in response to the COVID-19 crisis. We searched relevant literature in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar using specific keywords, e.g., “COVID-19 pandemic,” “preclinical medical education,” “online learning,” “remote learning,” “challenges,” and “opportunities.” The pandemic has posed several challenges to premedical education (e.g., suspension of face-to-face teaching, lack of cadaveric dissections, and practical/laboratory sessions) but has provided many opportunities as well, such as the incorporation of online learning in the curriculum and upskilling and reskilling in new technologies. To date, many medical schools have successfully transitioned their educational environment to emergency remote teaching and assessments. During COVID-19 crisis, the preclinical phase of medical curricula has successfully introduced the novel culture of “online home learning” using technology-oriented innovations, which may extend to post-COVID era to maintain teaching and learning in medical education. However, the lack of hands-on training in the preclinical years may have serious implications on the training of the current cohort of students, and they may struggle later in the clinical years. The use of emergent technology (e.g., artificial intelligence for adaptive learning, virtual simulation, and telehealth) for education is most likely to be indispensable components of the transformative change and post-COVID medical education.

BackgroundThe unprecedented global increase in the use of herbal remedies is set to continue apace well into the foreseeable future. This raises important public health concerns, especially as it relates to safety issues including adverse effects and herb-drug interactions. Most Western-trained physicians are ignorant of the risks and benefits of this healthcare modality and assessment of acceptance and knowledge would identify appropriate intervention strategies to improve physician-patient communication in this area.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was done using an interviewer-administered pilot tested de novo questionnaire at six public hospitals in Trinidad between May–July 2004. The questionnaire utilized weighed questions to quantify acceptance (maximum score = 14 points) and knowledge (maximum score = 52 points). Acceptance and knowledge scores were analyzed using the ANOVA and Tukey's tests.ResultsOf 192 physicians interviewed, most (60.4%) believed that herbal remedies were beneficial to health. Respondents had relatively high acceptance levels (mean = 5.69 ± 0.29 points or 40% of total possible score) and poor knowledge (mean = 7.77 ± 0.56 points or 15% of total possible score). Seventy-eight physicians (40.6%) admitted having used herbs in the past, and 60 of these (76.9%) were satisfied with the outcome. Although 52 physicians (27.1%) recommended the use of herbs to their patients only 29 (15.1%) were able to identify at least one known herb-drug interaction.ConclusionThe use of herbal remedies is relatively high in Trinidad, as throughout the world, and most patients self-medicate with or without the knowledge of their attending physician. Surprisingly, we demonstrated relatively high acceptance levels and use of herbs among physicians in Trinidad. This interesting scenario of high acceptance levels and poor knowledge creates a situation that demands urgent intervention. We recommend educational intervention to narrow the gap between acceptance and knowledge so that physicians would be adequately equipped to communicate with their patients on this modality. The integration of herbal medicine into the curriculum of medical schools, continuing education programs and the availability of reputable pharmacopoeias for referencing at public health institutions are useful instruments that can be used to close this gap and promote improved physician-patient communication.

Background: There is an increasing prevalence of asthma in the Caribbean and patients remain non-compliant to therapy despite the development of guidelines for management and prevention. Some patients may self-medicate with medicinal herbs for symptomatic relief, as there is a long tradition of use for a variety of ailments. The study assessed the prevalence of use and the factors affecting the decision to use herbs in asthmatic patients attending a public specialty care clinic in Trinidad.

BackgroundMultiple system atrophy (MSA) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of unknown etiology, manifesting as combination of parkinsonism, cerebellar syndrome and dysautonomia. Disease-modifying therapies are unavailable. Activation of microglia and production of toxic cytokines suggest a role of neuroinflammation in MSA pathogenesis. This pilot clinical trial evaluated safety and tolerability of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in MSA.MethodsThis was a single-arm interventional, single-center, open-label pilot study. Interventions included monthly infusions of the IVIG preparation Privigen®, dose 0.4 gram/kg, for 6 months. Primary outcome measures evaluated safety and secondary outcome measures evaluated preliminary efficacy of IVIG. Unified MSA Rating Scale (UMSARS) was measured monthly. Quantitative brain imaging using 3T MRI was performed before and after treatment.ResultsNine subjects were enrolled, and seven (2 women and 5 men, age range 55–64 years) completed the protocol. There were no serious adverse events. Systolic blood pressure increased during IVIG infusions (p<0.05). Two participants dropped out from the study because of a non-threatening skin rash. The UMSARS-I (activities of daily living) and USMARS-II (motor functions) improved significantly post-treatment. UMSARS-I improved in all subjects (pre-treatment 23.9 ± 6.0 vs. post-treatment 19.0±5.9 (p=0.01). UMSARS-II improved in 5 subjects, was unchanged in 1 and worsened in 1 (pre-treatment 26.1±7.5 vs. post-treatment 23.3±7.3 (p=0.025). The MR imaging results were not different comparing pre- to post-treatment.ConclusionsTreatment with IVIG appears to be safe, feasible and well tolerated and may improve functionality in MSA. A larger, placebo-controlled study is needed.

No abstract