Perception of Telemedicine and Remote Learning Following the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Health Education England Survey of London Obstetrics and Gynaecology Trainees

Sughashini Murugesu; Robert James Grogan; Hannah Meehan; Nina Cooper; Alex Novak; Erna Bayar; Lorraine Sheena Kasaven; Shankar Dilip Visvanathan; Srdjan Saso; Karen Joash; Tom Bourne

doi:10.2147/AMEP.S469745

Perception of Telemedicine and Remote Learning Following the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Health Education England Survey of London Obstetrics and Gynaecology Trainees

Adv Med Educ Pract. 2024 Dec 17:15:1231-1242. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S469745. eCollection 2024.

Authors

Sughashini Murugesu^{1

2

3}, Robert James Grogan¹, Hannah Meehan¹, Nina Cooper^{1

2}, Alex Novak^{1

2}, Erna Bayar^{1

2}, Lorraine Sheena Kasaven^{1

4}, Shankar Dilip Visvanathan^{3

5}, Srdjan Saso^{1

2}, Karen Joash^{1

3}, Tom Bourne^{1

2

6}

Affiliations

¹ Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK.
² Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College, London, UK.
³ London School of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Health Education England, London, UK.
⁴ Department of Cancer and Surgery, Imperial College, London, UK.
⁵ Whipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
⁶ Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the level of uptake of telemedicine among postgraduate obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) trainees in London, and how they perceive its impact on their training.

Methods: A mixed-methods survey aimed at exploring trainee perspectives of telemedicine use in clinical practice and its implications for training. Study participants were O&G specialist doctors on the London (UK) training programme. The survey was distributed to the 2022 cohort via Email communication facilitated by Health Education England.

Results: The response rate was 46.3% (118/255). Of respondents, 96% (113/118) had experience of telemedicine, in a range of clinical environments; 91% (106/117) felt telemedicine should become embedded in O&G practice (the most frequent reported advantage was time-saving and a barrier was language translation); 43% of trainees (50/116) stated that they were unable to attain effective clinical training during telemedicine appointments; and 70% (81/116) indicated a preference for remote online teaching. The majority of trainees (75%) had some level of experience in the use of technology in clinical training, encompassing various modalities including surgical and ultrasound simulation, remote real-time training and virtual reality patient consultations. Trainee responses, on the whole, reflected a lack of confidence in their ultrasound skills; 79.5% (74/93) of trainees responsible for acute gynaecology admissions reported that at least 25% of admissions were for deferred ultrasound scanning investigation. Most trainees anticipated that real-time remote supervision for both USS and laparoscopy would enhance training opportunities and expedite time to patient diagnosis and management. Anticipated barriers included concerns regarding the uptake of technology and connectivity issues.

Conclusion: Telemedicine for clinical care has been demonstrated to be well-received by most O&G trainees. However, it is necessary to consider effective O&G training when delivering telemedicine. Technology gives rise to a number of training opportunities, with the development of online teaching, telementoring and simulation. Trainees report both advantages and disadvantages which should be carefully considered to optimise postgraduate O&G training.

Keywords: obstetrics and gynaecology; postgraduate training; telemedicine.