Medical Student Attitudes toward USMLE Step 1 and Health Systems Science - A Multi-Institutional Survey.

Phenomenon: Because of its importance in residency selection, the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 occupies a critical position in medical education, stimulating national debate about appropriate score use, equitable selection criteria, and the goals of undergraduate medical education. Yet, student perspectives on these issues and their implications for engagement with health systems science-related curricular content are relatively underexplored. Approach: We conducted an online survey of medical students at 19 American allopathic medical schools from March-July, 2019. Survey items were designed to elicit student opinions on the Step 1 examination and the impact of the examination on their engagement with new, non-test curricular content related to health systems science. Findings: A total of 2856 students participated in the survey, representing 23.5% of those invited. While 87% of students agreed that doing well on the Step 1 exam was their top priority, 56% disagreed that studying for Step 1 had a positive impact on engagement in the medical school curriculum. Eighty-two percent of students disagreed that Step 1 scores should be the top item residency programs use to offer interviews. When asked whether Step 1 results should be reported pass/fail with no numeric score, 55% of students agreed, while 33% disagreed. The majority of medical students agreed that health systems science topics were important but disagreed that studying for Step 1 helped learn this content. Students reported being more motivated to study a topic if it was on the exam, part of a course grade, prioritized by residency program directors, or if it would make them a better physician in the future. Insights: These results confirm the primacy of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam in preclinical medical education and demonstrate the need to balance the objectives of medical licensure and residency selection with the goals of the broader medical profession. The survey responses suggest several potential solutions to increase student engagement in health systems science curricula which may be especially important after Step 1 examination results are reported as pass/fail.

Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole versus Placebo for Uncomplicated Skin Abscess.

BACKGROUND: U.S. emergency department visits for cutaneous abscess have increased with the emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The role of antibiotics for patients with a drained abscess is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial at five U.S. emergency departments to determine whether trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (at doses of 320 mg and 1600 mg, respectively, twice daily, for 7 days) would be superior to placebo in outpatients older than 12 years of age who had an uncomplicated abscess that was being treated with drainage. The primary outcome was clinical cure of the abscess, assessed 7 to 14 days after the end of the treatment period. RESULTS: The median age of the participants was 35 years (range, 14 to 73); 45.3% of the participants had wound cultures that were positive for MRSA. In the modified intention-to-treat population, clinical cure of the abscess occurred in 507 of 630 participants (80.5%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group versus 454 of 617 participants (73.6%) in the placebo group (difference, 6.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 11.7; P=0.005). In the per-protocol population, clinical cure occurred in 487 of 524 participants (92.9%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group versus 457 of 533 participants (85.7%) in the placebo group (difference, 7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.2 to 11.2; P<0.001). Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was superior to placebo with respect to most secondary outcomes in the per-protocol population, resulting in lower rates of subsequent surgical drainage procedures (3.4% vs. 8.6%; difference, -5.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.2 to -2.2), skin infections at new sites (3.1% vs. 10.3%; difference, -7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.4 to -4.1), and infections in household members (1.7% vs. 4.1%; difference, -2.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.6 to -0.2) 7 to 14 days after the treatment period. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with slightly more gastrointestinal side effects (mostly mild) than placebo. At 7 to 14 days after the treatment period, invasive infections had developed in 2 of 524 participants (0.4%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group and in 2 of 533 participants (0.4%) in the placebo group; at 42 to 56 days after the treatment period, an invasive infection had developed in 1 participant (0.2%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group. CONCLUSIONS: In settings in which MRSA was prevalent, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole treatment resulted in a higher cure rate among patients with a drained cutaneous abscess than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00729937.).

Effect of Initial Bedside Ultrasonography on Emergency Department Skin and Soft Tissue Infection Management.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examine the utility of emergency department (ED) ultrasonography in treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. METHODS: We enrolled ED patients with skin and soft tissue infections and surveyed clinicians in regard to their pre-ultrasonography certainty about the presence or absence of an abscess, their planned management, post-ultrasonography findings, and actual management. We determined sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography and clinical evaluation, and assessed appropriateness of management changes based on initial clinical assessment and outcomes through 1-week follow-up. RESULTS: Among 1,216 patients, clinicians were uncertain of abscess presence in 105 cases (8.6%) and certain for 1,111 cases (91.4%). Based on surgical exploration and follow-up through 1 week, sensitivity and specificity for abscess detection by clinical evaluation were 90.3% and 97.7%, and by ultrasonography were 94.0% and 94.1%, respectively. Among 1,111 cases for which the clinician was certain, sensitivity and specificity of clinical evaluation were 96.6% and 97.3% compared with ultrasonographic evaluation sensitivity and specificity of 95.7% and 96.2%, respectively. Of 105 uncertain cases, sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 68.5% and 80.4%. Ultrasonography changed management in 13 of 1,111 certain cases (1.2%), appropriately in 10 of 13 (76.9%) and inappropriately in 3 of 13 (23.1%). Of 105 uncertain cases, ultrasonography changed management in 25 (23.8%), appropriately in 21 of 25 (84.0%) and inappropriately in 4 of 25 (16.0%). CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography rarely changed management when clinicians were certain about the presence or absence of an abscess. When they were uncertain, ultrasonography changed drainage decisions in approximately one quarter of cases, of which most (84%) were appropriate.

Subgroup Analysis of Antibiotic Treatment for Skin Abscesses.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Two large randomized trials recently demonstrated efficacy of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-active antibiotics for drained skin abscesses. We determine whether outcome advantages observed in one trial exist across lesion sizes and among subgroups with and without guideline-recommended antibiotic indications. METHODS: We conducted a planned subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized trial at 5 US emergency departments, demonstrating superiority of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (320/1,600 mg twice daily for 7 days) compared with placebo for patients older than 12 years with a drained skin abscess. We determined between-group differences in rates of clinical (no new antibiotics) and composite cure (no new antibiotics or drainage) through 7 to 14 and 42 to 56 days after treatment among subgroups with and without abscess cavity or erythema diameter greater than or equal to 5 cm, history of MRSA, fever, diabetes, and comorbidities. We also evaluated treatment effect by lesion size and culture result. RESULTS: Among 1,057 mostly adult participants, median abscess cavity and erythema diameters were 2.5 cm (range 0.1 to 16.0 cm) and 6.5 cm (range 1.0 to 38.5), respectively; 44.3% grew MRSA. Overall, for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and placebo groups, clinical cure rate at 7 to 14 days was 92.9% and 85.7%; composite cure rate at 7 to 14 days was 86.5% and 74.3%, and at 42 to 56 days, it was 82.4% and 70.2%. For all outcomes, across lesion sizes and among subgroups with and without guideline antibiotic criteria, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with improved outcomes. Treatment effect was greatest with history of MRSA infection, fever, and positive MRSA culture. CONCLUSION: Treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with improved outcomes regardless of lesion size or guideline antibiotic criteria.

Effect of Cephalexin Plus Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole vs Cephalexin Alone on Clinical Cure of Uncomplicated Cellulitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Emergency department visits for skin infections in the United States have increased with the emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). For cellulitis without purulent drainage, ß-hemolytic streptococci are presumed to be the predominant pathogens. It is unknown if antimicrobial regimens possessing in vitro MRSA activity provide improved outcomes compared with treatments lacking MRSA activity. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole yields a higher clinical cure rate of uncomplicated cellulitis than cephalexin alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized superiority trial in 5 US emergency departments among outpatients older than 12 years with cellulitis and no wound, purulent drainage, or abscess enrolled from April 2009 through June 2012. All participants had soft tissue ultrasound performed at the time of enrollment to exclude abscess. Final follow-up was August 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Cephalexin, 500 mg 4 times daily, plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 320 mg/1600 mg twice daily, for 7 days (n = 248 participants) or cephalexin plus placebo for 7 days (n = 248 participants). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome determined a priori in the per-protocol group was clinical cure, defined as absence of these clinical failure criteria at follow-up visits: fever; increase in erythema (>25%), swelling, or tenderness (days 3-4); no decrease in erythema, swelling, or tenderness (days 8-10); and more than minimal erythema, swelling, or tenderness (days 14-21). A clinically significant difference was defined as greater than 10%. RESULTS: Among 500 randomized participants, 496 (99%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 411 (82.2%) in the per-protocol analysis (median age, 40 years [range, 15-78 years]; 58.4% male; 10.9% had diabetes). Median length and width of erythema were 13.0 cm and 10.0 cm. In the per-protocol population, clinical cure occurred in 182 (83.5%) of 218 participants in the cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group vs 165 (85.5%) of 193 in the cephalexin group (difference, -2.0%; 95% CI, -9.7% to 5.7%; P = .50). In the modified intention-to-treat population, clinical cure occurred in 189 (76.2%) of 248 participants in the cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group vs 171 (69.0%) of 248 in the cephalexin group (difference, 7.3%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 15.5%; P = .07). Between-group adverse event rates and secondary outcomes through 7 to 9 weeks, including overnight hospitalization, recurrent skin infections, and similar infection in household contacts, did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with uncomplicated cellulitis, the use of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole compared to cephalexin alone did not result in higher rates of clinical resolution of cellulitis in the per-protocol analysis. However, because imprecision around the findings in the modified intention-to-treat analysis included a clinically important difference favoring cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, further research may be needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00729937.

A Randomized Trial of Clindamycin Versus Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for Uncomplicated Wound Infection.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the United States, visits for skin infections greatly increased. Staphylococci and streptococci are considered predominant causes of wound infections. Clindamycin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) are commonly prescribed, but the efficacy of TMP-SMX has been questioned. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, superiority trial at 5 US emergency departments. Patients >12 years of age with an uncomplicated wound infection received oral clindamycin 300 mg 4 times daily or TMP-SMX 320 mg/1600 mg twice daily, each for 7 days. We compared the primary outcome, wound infection cure at 7-14 days, and secondary outcomes through 6-8 weeks after treatment, in the per-protocol population. RESULTS: Subjects had a median age of 40 years (range, 14-76 years); 40.1% of wound specimens grew MRSA, 25.7% methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, and 5.0% streptococci. The wound infection was cured at 7-14 days in 187 of 203 (92.1%) clindamycin-treated and 182 of 198 (91.9%) TMP-SMX-treated subjects (difference, 0.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.8% to 6.2%; P = not significant). The clindamycin group had a significantly lower rate of recurrence at 7-14 days (1.5% vs 6.6%; difference, -5.1%; 95% CI, -9.4% to -.8%) and through 6-8 weeks following treatment (2.0% vs 7.1%; difference, -5.1%; 95% CI, -9.7% to -.6%). Other secondary outcomes were statistically similar between groups but tended to favor clindamycin. Adverse event rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In settings where MRSA is prevalent, clindamycin and TMP-SMX produce similar cure and adverse event rates among patients with an uncomplicated wound infection. Further study evaluating differential effects of antibiotics on recurrent infection may be warranted. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00729937.

Utility of routine testing for patients with asymptomatic severe blood pressure elevation in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Recommendations for the treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with asymptomatic severely elevated blood pressure advise assessment for occult, acute hypertensive target-organ damage. This study determines the prevalence of unanticipated, clinically meaningful test abnormalities in ED patients with asymptomatic severely elevated blood pressure. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study at 3 urban academic EDs. Consecutive patients with systolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 180 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 110 mm Hg on 2 measurements were enrolled if they denied symptoms of hypertensive emergency. A basic metabolic panel, urinalysis, ECG, CBC count, and chest radiograph were obtained. Treating physicians were interviewed about the indication for each test and whether an abnormal result was anticipated according to clinical findings. When test results were available, physicians were asked whether abnormal findings were clinically meaningful, defined as leading to unanticipated hospitalization, medication modification, or further immediate evaluation. The primary outcome was the prevalence of unanticipated clinically meaningful test abnormalities. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients with asymptomatic severely elevated blood pressure were enrolled. Unanticipated abnormal test results were noted in 57 (52%) patients. Clinically meaningful unanticipated test abnormalities were found in 7 (6%) patients: basic metabolic panel in 2 (2%), CBC count in 3 (3%), urinalysis in 3 (4%), ECG in 2 (2%), and chest radiograph in 1 (1%). Five patients (5%) had abnormalities assessed as possible manifestations of acute hypertensive target-organ injury; none had abnormalities clearly related to severely elevated blood pressure. CONCLUSION: Screening tests of urban ED patients with asymptomatic severely elevated blood pressure infrequently detect unanticipated hypertension-related abnormalities that alter ED management.

Antibiotic use for emergency department patients with upper respiratory infections: prescribing practices, patient expectations, and patient satisfaction.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Physicians often prescribe antibiotics to patients even when there is no clear indication for their use. Previous studies examining antibiotic use in acute bronchitis and upper respiratory infections have been conducted in primary care settings. We evaluate the factors that physicians in the emergency department (ED) consider when prescribing antibiotics (eg, patient expectations) and the factors associated with patient satisfaction. METHODS: Ten academic EDs enrolled adults and children presenting with symptoms consistent with upper respiratory infection. Enrolled patients were interviewed before their physician encounter and were reinterviewed before discharge and 2 weeks later. Physicians were interviewed about factors that influenced their management decisions, including their perceptions of patients' expectations. Patients with a single diagnosis of uncomplicated acute bronchitis or upper respiratory infection were included for analysis. RESULTS: Of 272 patients enrolled, 68% of bronchitis patients and 9% of upper respiratory infection patients received antibiotics. Physicians were more likely to prescribe antibiotics when they believed that patients expected them (odds ratio [OR] 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9 to 9.6), although they were able to correctly identify only 27% of the patients who expected antibiotics. Satisfaction with the ED visit was reported by 87% of patients who received antibiotics and 89% of those not receiving antibiotics. Satisfaction with the visit was reported by 92% of patients who believed they had a better understanding of their illness but only by 72% of those who thought they had no better understanding (OR 4.4; 95% CI 2.0 to 8.4). CONCLUSION: Physicians in our academic EDs prescribed antibiotics to 68% of acute bronchitis patients and to fewer than 10% of upper respiratory infection patients. Physicians were more likely to prescribe antibiotics to patients who they believed expected them, although they correctly identified only about 1 in 4 of those patients. Patient satisfaction was not related to receipt of antibiotics but was related to the belief they had a better understanding of their illness.

Evaluation and treatment of patients with severely elevated blood pressure in academic emergency departments: a multicenter study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines advise that emergency department (ED) patients with severely elevated blood pressure be evaluated for acute target organ damage, have their medical regimen adjusted, and be instructed to follow up promptly for reassessment. We examine factors associated with performance of recommended treatment of patients with severely elevated blood pressure. METHODS: Observational study performed during 1 week at 4 urban, academic EDs. Severely elevated blood pressure was defined as systolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 180 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 110 mm Hg on at least 1 measurement. ED staff were blinded to the study purpose. Demographics, presenting complaints, vital signs, tests ordered, medications administered, disposition, and discharge instructions were recorded, and associations were tested in bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Severely elevated blood pressure was noted in 423 patients. Serum chemistry was obtained in 73% of patients, ECG in 53% of patients, chest radiograph in 46% of patients, urinalysis in 43% of patients, and funduscopy documented in 36% of patients. All studies were performed in 6% of patients and were associated with complaints of dyspnea (odds ratio [OR] 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 8.7) and chest pain (OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.2 to 7.6). Oral antihypertensives were administered to 36% of patients and were associated with blood pressure-related complaints (OR 2.0 [1.2 to 3.3]), patient-suspected severely elevated blood pressure (OR 5.6, 95% CI 2.0 to 15.3), and being uninsured (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.3). Intravenous antihypertensives were given to 4% of patients, associated only with chest pain (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1 to 9.5). Modification of antihypertensive regimen was documented in 19% of discharged patients and associated with patient-suspected severely elevated blood pressure (OR 5.5; 95% CI 2.5 to 12.2) and being uninsured (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.9). CONCLUSION: The majority of ED patients with severely elevated blood pressure do not receive the evaluation, medical regimen modification, and discharge instructions advised by current guidelines. Further study is necessary to determine whether these recommendations are appropriate in this setting.

A comparison of trauma intubations managed by anesthesiologists and emergency physicians.

UNLABELLED: Although airway management by emergency physicians has become standard for general emergency department (ED) patients, many believe that anesthesiologists should manage the airways of trauma victims. OBJECTIVES: To compare the success and failure rates of trauma intubations performed under the supervision of anesthesiologists and emergency physicians. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of consecutive endotracheal intubations (ETIs) of adult trauma patients in a single ED over a 46-month period. All ETIs before November 26, 2000, were supervised by anesthesiologists (34 months), and all ETIs from November 26, 2000, onward were supervised by emergency physicians (12 months). Data regarding clinical presentation, personnel involved, medications used, number of attempts required, and need for cricothyrotomy were collected. Study outcomes were: 1) successful intubation within two attempts, and 2) failure of intubation. Failure was defined as inability to intubate, resulting in successful intubation by another specialist, or cricothyrotomy. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to compare results between groups. RESULTS: There were 673 intubations during the study period. Intubation within two attempts was accomplished in 442 of 467 patients (94.6%) managed by anesthesiologists, and in 196 of 206 of patients (95.2%) managed by emergency physicians (OR = 1.109, 95% CI = 0.498 to 2.522). Failure of intubation occurred in 16 of 467 (3.4%) patients managed by anesthesiologists, and in four of 206 (1.9%) patients managed by emergency physicians (OR = 0.558, 95% CI = 0.156 to 1.806). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency physicians can safely manage the airways of trauma patients. Success and failure rates are similar to those of anesthesiologists.

Urine dipstick as a screening test for serum creatinine elevation in emergency department patients with severe hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with severe hypertension require assessment for acute end-organ damage. Serum creatinine (SCr) measurement is routinely recommended to detect renal dysfunction. The authors assessed the utility of the urine dipstick test in screening for acute SCr elevation in this population. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective study of adult ED patients with diastolic blood pressures > or = 115 mm Hg that persisted for > or = 30 minutes or necessitated emergent treatment. Excluded were menstruating and pregnant women and patients with urinary infection, trauma, or dialysis dependence. Patients reporting a history of renal disease were excluded if the SCr was abnormal and no baseline value was available. Each subject had an SCr and urine dipstick test. The authors examined the performance of the dipstick in identifying an elevated SCr, defined as SCr > 1.2 mg/dL or > 25% above baseline. RESULTS: Of 143 patients, 42 had SCr > 1.2 mg/dL. Eighteen reported prior renal disease but had an SCr that was normal or < or = 25% above baseline. The remaining 24 subjects comprised the elevated SCr group. The presence of either proteinuria or hematuria on dipstick identified these patients with 100% sensitivity and 29.7% specificity. Specificity rose to 42.4% without loss of sensitivity when an abnormal dipstick was defined as hematuria or > or = 1+ proteinuria. CONCLUSIONS: The urine dipstick may be an effective screening test for SCr elevation in patients with severe hypertension. A restrictive definition of an abnormal dipstick would identify all patients with elevated SCr and substantially reduce the number of SCr assays necessary.

Emergency medicine research directors and research programs: characteristics and factors associated with productivity.

BACKGROUND: Periodic surveys of research directors (RDs) in emergency medicine (EM) are useful to assess the specialty's development and evolution of the RD role. OBJECTIVES: To assess associations between characteristics and research productivity of RDs and EM programs. METHODS: A survey of EM RDs was developed using the nominal group technique and pilot tested. RDs or surrogate respondents at programs certified by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were contacted by e-mail in early 2005. The survey assessed programs' research infrastructure and productivity, as well as RD characteristics, responsibilities, and career satisfaction. Three measures of research productivity were empirically defined: research publications, grant awards, and grant revenue. RESULTS: Responses were received from 86% of 123 EM programs. Productivity was associated with the presence of nonclinical faculty, dedicated research coordinators, and reduced clinical hours for research faculty. Programs with an RD did not have greater research productivity, using any measure, than those without an RD. The majority of RDs cited pursuing their own studies, obtaining funding, research mentoring, and research administration to be major responsibilities. The majority characterized internal research funding, grant development support, and support from other faculty as inadequate. Most RDs are satisfied with their careers and expect to remain in the position for three or more years. CONCLUSIONS: Research productivity of EM residency programs is associated with the presence of dedicated research faculty and staff and with reduced clinical demands for research faculty. Despite perceiving deficiencies in important resources, most RDs are professionally satisfied.