Adding to the COVID-19 Educational Script

As we face the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic for yet another month, it rings true that our training programs, medical teams, and trainees need a sound plan and script. The pandemic has changed the way we deliver care, teach, and conference in medicine (1–3). COVID-19 has even forced us to change the way we interview applicants for our specialties (4, 5). Two articles recently published in ATS Scholar inform us of how COVID-19 altered medical education globally in the intensive care unit and in U.S. pulmonary critical care medicine (PCCM) training programs as a whole. Matta and colleagues surveyed program directors from the United States to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on American PCCM fellowship training (6), whereas Wahlster and colleagues performed a global survey of trainees and attending physicians from around the globe on COVID-19’s effect on critical care training (7). From their surveys, these authors illuminate strategies to overcome COVID-19 obstacles and further add to the educational script to date. These articles deliver practical strategies in a timely fashion that programs can use to augment education as the pandemic continues. Matta and colleagues distributed an efficient program director–only survey that yielded rich quantitative and qualitative data. Directly accessing program leadership ensured that educational efforts across the entire country were well represented. Significant gaps in particular curricular areas related to COVID-19 were identified, including reduced opportunities for fellow pulmonary function test interpretations, procedures such as elective bronchoscopies, and outpatient encounters. The inclusion of qualitative data offered insight on how programs adapted their curricula to account for these changes and delivered “how to train in a pandemic” recommendations for PCCM fellowships: have frequent check-ins with fellows, adjust work schedules to ensure contiguous days off during busy rotations, continue to educate with didactics using virtual platforms, and add simulation opportunities to bolster procedure experiences. Although the authors are applauded for obtaining robust information during a pandemic peak, the efficiency-based approach applied certainly came with limitations, including a relatively low response rate at 28.5%, and most of the information derived came from university-based programs, leaving some uncertainty regarding curricular changes at community-based programs. To maintain efficiency, no trainee