Abstracts

Rationale: 2020-2021 posed unique challenges to medical education due to the need to social distance in order to mitigate COVID exposure risk. This presented barriers to neurologic training, as general neurology is heavily based on the physical exam. It is possible however that the same limitations may not exist when doing EEG rounds as visual data can be easily shared via video-conferencing. Our objective was to investigate the quality, educational proficiency, and efficiency of video-conference EEG rounding in comparison to in-person EEG rounding, as well as viable interest to continue video-conferencing as the preferred modality for EEG rounds in the future.

Methods: We surveyed neurology residents, epilepsy fellows, and epilepsy faculty in the Mount Sinai Health System about their experience with EEG video-conference rounds using Zoom during the COVID pandemic period from 7/2020 - 5/2021. The survey included 18 questions that pertained to the proportion of video-conference EEG rounds utilization, educational experience (visibility of EEG tracing, ability to interact with instructor/trainee, overall educational experience), efficiency (if remote rounding was done at home and how much commute time was avoided), and technical aspects (video/audio quality, equipment/internet performance) of video-conference EEG rounds. Level of training and years of experience as a faculty were also obtained.

Results: The study included 16 respondents (100% did Zoom EEG rounds): 8 residents, 2 fellows, 6 faculty (4 with >10 years of experience). 14 respondents (87.5%) endorsed that their educational experience with Zoom EEG rounds was as good as in-person EEG rounds. More specifically, 15 respondents (93.75%) noted that EEG tracing visibility using Zoom was as good as in-person EEG (50% noted that visibility was better), and 12 respondents (75%) endorsed that instructor/trainee interaction was as good as in-person EEG rounds. Nine respondents (56.25%) noted that efficiency was better than in-person EEG rounds, with comments endorsing that video-conferencing provided more time to read EEGs and saved commute time [6 respondents (37.5%) saved >40 mins in commute time]. All respondents wanted to continue using Zoom video-conferencing, with many (56.25%) preferring Zoom video-conference rounds over in-person rounds. All respondents noted satisfactory internet and audio/video quality in our survey, with only one noting unsatisfactory equipment. Responses between the faculty and trainees were similar.

Conclusions: In our survey of trainees and faculty who participated in video-conference EEG rounds from 7/2020 to 5/2021, most endorsed that video-conference rounds provided as good (often better) of an educational experience than in-person EEG rounds, noting better EEG tracing visibility, satisfactory faculty/trainee interactions, and better efficiency than in-person EEG rounding. All respondents wanted to continue video-conferencing as a modality of doing EEG rounds going forward. Responses between the faculty and trainees were similar.

Funding: Please list any funding that was received in support of this abstract.: No funding to disclose.