A Comprehensive Residency Wellness Curriculum

Introduction: Resident physician burnout is an epidemic in medical education. There are several wellness curricula published, but few describe a comprehensive program to address wellness. Our objectives were to develop and pilot a longitudinal resident wellness curriculum and assess for feasibility and sustainability. Methods: We surveyed emergency medicine (EM) residents from two residency programs in the United States to assess a baseline level of burnout using the Maslach Burnout Inventory. We developed a comprehensive and longitudinal wellness curriculum for EM residents that incorporated all domains identified by the American College of Emergency Physicians Wellness Wheel. Mindfulness practice was incorporated throughout the curriculum. Results: A convenience sample of 106 EM residents were sent the baseline survey. A response rate of 69% was achieved, the median age of the respondents was 29 years, and 44.5% were female. Overall, 67.5% (95% CI: 50.5; 80.8%) reported burnout in at least one of the three domains of the Maslach Burnout inventory. 34.8% reported burnout in the personal accomplishment domain, 40.8% reported depersonalization, and 44.3% reported emotional exhaustion. The wellness curriculum was successfully implemented at the Georgia-based residency program. The curriculum has proven to be sustainable since it began in 2016. Quantitative statistical testing for the post-intervention survey was not possible due to a low response rate. However, subjective receivability was high, with participants describing these sessions as high-yield, informative and practical. Conclusions: Burnout is highly prevalent among EM residents. We provide a curriculum developed for an EM residency program that is multifaceted and comprehensive, including basic wellness topics, mindfulness, financial and medicolegal issues, as well as topics that address the stresses specific to clinical emergency medicine. The curriculum has been in place in its current form since 2016 and has proven to be sustainable

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health