How the COVID-19 pandemic affects specialty training: An analysis of a nationwide survey among otolaryngology residents in Chile

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, has become a global pandemic. Given that the highest viral load of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is found in the airway, otolaryngologists are at high risk of infection. As a result, multiple recommendations have emerged regarding protective measures for surgical teams, including suspending non-urgent procedures and surgeries.

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on otolaryngology residency training programs nationwide.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey-based study was completed in April 2020. The participants were recruited through an online survey, sent by email to all Chilean otolaryngology residents. Demographics, clinical activities, on-call shifts, COVID-19 infection status, exposure to COVID-19 patients, deployment to other specialties, diagnostic/therapeutic procedures, and surgeries performed were analyzed. Self-reported surgical data logs from previous years were used to compare results.

Results

Forty-seven residents completed the survey (84% response rate); 64% of residents refer seeing patients ten days or less during April 2020. Commonly performed procedures such as flexible nasolaryngoscopy, rigid nasal endoscopy, and peritonsillar abscess drainage were not performed by over 40% of the residents in that month. Only 38% participated in surgeries, with an average of 0.6 surgeries as a first surgeon, a dramatic decrease in surgical exposure when comparing the data logs from previous years. Most residents refer the following measures taken by their residency program to improve residency training: bibliographic videoconferences (87%), online clinical case seminars (60%), weekly journal clubs (38%), among others.

Conclusions

Clinical and surgical opportunities decreased dramatically during April 2020. Adjustments to the regular academic curricula should be considered to decrease the negative impact of this pandemic on residency training.

The impact of alternative cost recovery schemes on access and equity in Niger

The authors examine accessibility and the sustainability of quality health care in a rural setting under two alternative cost recovery methods, a fee-for-service method and a type of social financing (risk-sharing) strategy based on an annual tax+fee-for-service. Both methods were accompanied by similar interventions aimed at improving the quality of primary health services. Based on pilot tests of cost recovery in the non-hospital sector in Niger, the article presents results from baseline and final survey data, as well as from facility utilization, cost, and revenue data collected in two test districts and a control district. Cost recovery accompanied by quality improvements increases equity and access to health care and the type of cost recovery method used can make a difference. In Niger, higher access for women, children, and the poor resulted from the tax+fee method, than from the pure fee-for-service method. Moreover, revenue generation per capita under the tax+fee method was two times higher than under the fee-for-service method, suggesting that the prospects of sustainability were better under the social financing strategy. However, sustainability under cost recovery and improved quality depends as much on policy measures aimed at cost containment, particularly for drugs, as on specific cost recovery methods.

Efficiency and quality in the public and private sectors in Senegal

It is often argued that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector in the production of health services, and that government reliance on private provision would help improve the efficiency and equity of public spending in health. A review of the literature, however, shows that there is little evidence to support these statements. A study of government and non-governmental facilities was undertaken in Senegal, taking into account case mix, input prices, and quality of care, to examine relative efficiency in the delivery of health services. The study revealed that private providers are highly heterogeneous, although they tend to offer better quality services. A specific and important group of providers--Catholic health posts--were shown to be significantly more efficient than public and other private facilities in the provision of curative and preventive ambulatory services at high levels of output. Policies to expand the role of the private sector need to take into account variations in types of providers, as well as evidence of both high and low quality among them. In terms of public sector efficiency, findings from the study affirm others that indicate drug policy reform to be one of the most important policy interventions that can simultaneously improve efficiency, quality and effectiveness of care. Relationships that this study identified between quality and efficiency suggest that strategies to improve quality can increase efficiency, raise demand for services, and thereby expand access.