Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic has significantly disrupted clinical experience and exposure of medical students and junior doctors. Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration in medical education has the potential to enhance learning and improve patient care. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of three popular large language models (LLMs) in serving as clinical decision‐making support tools for junior doctors.Methods: A series of increasingly complex clinical scenarios were presented to ChatGPT, Google's Bard and Bing's AI. Their responses were evaluated against standard guidelines, and for reliability by the Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, the Coleman‐Liau Index, and the modified DISCERN score for assessing suitability. Lastly, the LLMs outputs were assessed by using the Likert scale for accuracy, informativeness, and accessibility by three experienced specialists.Results: In terms of readability and reliability, ChatGPT stood out among the three LLMs, recording the highest scores in Flesch Reading Ease (31.2 ± 3.5), Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (13.5 ± 0.7), Coleman–Lau Index (13) and DISCERN (62 ± 4.4). These results suggest statistically significant superior comprehensibility and alignment with clinical guidelines in the medical advice given by ChatGPT. Bard followed closely behind, with BingAI trailing in all categories. The only non‐significant statistical differences (P > 0.05) were found between ChatGPT and Bard's readability indices, and between the Flesch Reading Ease scores of ChatGPT/Bard and BingAI.Conclusion: This study demonstrates the potential utility of LLMs in fostering self‐directed and personalized learning, as well as bolstering clinical decision‐making support for junior doctors. However further development is needed for its integration into education.

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare resources and the medical workforce. Clinically-based medical education is the principal source of learning, and this has been profoundly impacted by restrictions due to COVID-19. It follows that junior medical staff and their education would be significantly impacted due to the altered volume and breadth of their clinical exposure. Some literature has been published regarding the impact to medical training during COVID-19. This study sought to review junior medical staff perceptions and their reported impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their education and training.Nine databases (three Ovid MEDLINE databases, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Centre and PsychINFO) were searched for studies published in 1 January 2020 through 24 August 2020. Via a scoping review protocol, an iterative process was used to perform the identification, review and charting analysis of the reported outcomes and themes. Descriptive analysis was performed using quantitative and qualitative methods.Of the 25 343 sources identified, 32 were included in the review. There were studies published from nearly all continents, predominantly in surgical journals, with a wide spread of specialties. Themes identified included the current impact of the pandemic in relation to continuation of and modifications to training programmes, as well as the future impact due to training requirements and career progression.Junior medical staff report that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on their education and training. Whether the changes imposed by the pandemic on education are temporary measures or permanent fixtures, and whether standards of competence may be impacted, is not yet known. This scoping review forms a basis for further investigation in the field.

Background: In Australia, the COVID‐19 pandemic has caused severe social disruptions, including restrictions to the movement of people. Healthcare centres around the world have seen changes in the nature of injuries acquired during the COVID‐19 pandemic; we therefore hypothesize that social isolation measures have changed the pattern of plastic and reconstructive surgery presentations.Methods: A prospective cohort study was designed comparing patient presentations during the enforced COVID‐19 lockdown to two previous periods. All emergency referrals requiring operative intervention by the plastic and reconstructive surgery unit of our institution were included. Patient demographics, place and mechanism of injury, drug and alcohol involvement, delays to presentation, length of admission and complication rates were collected.Results: Demographics and complication rates were similar across all groups. A 31.8% reduction in total number of emergency cases was seen during the lockdown period. Increase in do‐it‐yourself injuries (P = 0.001), bicycle injuries (P = 0.001) and injuries acquired via substance abuse (P = 0.041) was observed. Head and neck injuries, mostly due to animal bites and falls, were also more prevalent compared to the same period the previous year (P = 0.007). As expected, over 80% of plastic surgery operations during the COVID‐19 period were due to injuries acquired at home, a significant increase compared to previous periods.Conclusion: Despite changes in the pattern of presentations requiring plastic and reconstructive emergency surgery, traumatic injuries continued to occur during the pandemic. Thus, planning will be essential to ensure resource allocation for emergency procedures is sustained as second and third waves of COVID‐19 cases emerge worldwide.