Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination effectiveness in healthcare personnel (HCP) has been established. However, questions remain regarding its performance in high-risk healthcare occupations and work locations. We describe the effect of a COVID-19 HCP vaccination campaign on SARS-CoV-2 infection by timing of vaccination, job type, and work location.

We conducted a retrospective review of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance, incidence of postvaccination COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality among 16,156 faculty, students, and staff at a large academic medical center. Data were collected 8 weeks prior to the start of phase 1a vaccination of frontline employees and ended 11 weeks after campaign onset.

The COVID-19 incidence rate among HCP at our institution decreased from 3.2% during the 8 weeks prior to the start of vaccinations to 0.38% by 4 weeks after campaign initiation. COVID-19 risk was reduced among individuals who received a single vaccination (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.68; P < .0001) and was further reduced with 2 doses of vaccine (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09–0.32; P < .0001). By 2 weeks after the second dose, the observed case positivity rate was 0.04%. Among phase 1a HCP, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 among physicians and a trend toward higher risk for respiratory therapists independent of vaccination status. Rates of infection were similar in a subgroup of nurses when examined by work location.

Our findings show the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in HCP. Despite these encouraging results, unvaccinated HCP remain at an elevated risk of infection, highlighting the need for targeted outreach to combat vaccine hesitancy.

Clinical judgment, the ability to make appropriate decisions in uncertain situations, is central to neurological practice, but objective measures of clinical judgment in neurology trainees are lacking. The Script Concordance Test (SCT), based on script theory from cognitive psychology, uses authentic clinical scenarios to compare a trainee’s judgment skills with those of experts. The SCT has been validated in several medical disciplines, but has not been investigated in neurology.

We developed an Internet-based neurology SCT (NSCT) comprising 24 clinical scenarios with three to four questions each. The scenarios were designed to reflect the uncertainty of real-life clinical encounters in adult neurology. The questions explored aspects of the scenario in which several responses might be acceptable; trainees were asked to judge which response they considered to be best. Forty-one PGY1-PGY5 neurology residents and eight medical students from three North American neurology programs (McGill, Calgary, and Mayo Clinic) completed the NSCT. The responses of trainees to each question were compared with the aggregate responses of an expert panel of 16 attending neurologists.

The NSCT demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.79). Neurology residents scored higher than medical students and lower than attending neurologists, supporting the test’s construct validity. Furthermore, NSCT scores discriminated between senior (PGY3-5) and junior residents (PGY1-2).

Our NSCT is a practical and reliable instrument, and our findings support its construct validity for assessing judgment in neurology trainees. The NSCT has potentially widespread applications as an evaluation tool, both in neurology training and for licensing examinations.