Resident Supervision and Patient Care: A Comparative Time Study in a Community-Academic Versus a Community Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare attending emergency physician (EP) time spent on direct and indirect patient care activities in emergency departments (EDs) with and without emergency medicine (EM) residents. METHODS: We performed an observational, time-motion study on 25 EPs who worked in a community-academic ED and a nonacademic community ED. Two observations of each EP were performed at each site. Average time spent per 240-minute observation on main-category activities are illustrated in percentages. We report descriptive statistics (median and interquartile ranges) for the number of minutes EPs spent per subcategory activity, in total and per patient. We performed a Wilcoxon two-sample test to assess differences between time spent across two EDs. RESULTS: The 25 observed EPs executed 34,358 tasks in the two EDs. At the community-academic ED, EPs spent 14.2% of their time supervising EM residents. Supervision activities included data presentation, medical decision making, and treatment. The time spent on supervision was offset by a decrease in time spent by EPs on indirect patient care (specifically communication and electronic health record work) at the community academic ED compared to the nonacademic community ED. There was no statistical difference with respect to direct patient care time expenditure between the two EDs. There was a nonstatistically significant difference in attending patient load between sites. CONCLUSIONS: EPs in our study spent 14.2% of their time (8.5 minutes/hour) supervising residents. The time spent supervising residents was largely offset by time savings related to indirect patient care activities rather than compromising direct patient care.

A Multicenter Collaboration for Simulation-Based Assessment of ACGME Milestones in Emergency Medicine.

STATEMENT: In 2014, the six allopathic emergency medicine (EM) residency programs in Chicago established an annual, citywide, simulation-based assessment of all postgraduate year 2 EM residents. The cases and corresponding assessment tools were designed by the simulation directors from each of the participating sites. All assessment tools include critical actions that map directly to numerous EM milestones in 11 different subcompetencies. The 2-hour assessments provide opportunities for residents to lead resuscitations of critically ill patients and demonstrate procedural skills, using mannequins and task trainers respectively. More than 80 residents participate annually and their assessment experiences are essentially identical across testing sites. The assessments are completed electronically and comparative performance data are immediately available to program directors.

Bilateral acute angle-closure glaucoma in a migraine patient receiving topiramate: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Patients with migraine headaches are frequently prescribed topiramate to treat their condition. CASE REPORT: We present a case of bilateral acute angle-closure glaucoma occurring 2 days after topiramate therapy was increased for symptoms related to migraine. CONCLUSION: Acute angle-closure glaucoma secondary to topiramate is an uncommon but serious adverse reaction that may result in severe morbidity such as permanent visual loss if not recognized in a timely manner. Treatment differs from primary acute angle-closure glaucoma in that discontinuation of topiramate is necessary for the glaucoma to resolve.

Systems-based practice: Summary of the 2010 Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Academic Assembly Consensus Workgroup--teaching and evaluating the difficult-to-teach competencies.

OBJECTIVES: The development of robust Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) systems-based practice (SBP) training and validated evaluation tools has been generally challenging for emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. The purpose of this paper is to report the results of a consensus workgroup session of the 2010 Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) Academic Assembly with the following objectives: 1) to discuss current and preferred local and regional methods for teaching and assessing SBP and 2) to develop consensus within the CORD community using the modified Delphi method with respect to EM-specific SBP domains and link these domains to specific SBP educational and evaluative methods. METHODS: Consensus was developed using a modified Delphi method. Previously described taxonomy generation methodology was used to create a SBP taxonomy of EM domain-specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA). The steps in the process consisted of: 1) an 11-question preconference survey, 2) a vetting process conducted at the 2010 CORD Academic Assembly, and 3) the development and ranking of domain-specific SBP educational activities and evaluation criteria for the specialty of EM. RESULTS: Rank-order lists were created for preferred SBP education and evaluation methods. Expert modeling, informal small group discussion, and formal small group activities were considered to be the optimal methods to teach SBP. Kruskal-Wallis testing revealed that these top three items were rated significantly higher than self-directed learning projects and lectures (p = 0.0317). Post hoc test via permutation testing revealed that the difference was significant between expert modeling and formal small group activity (adjusted p = 0.028), indicating that expert modeling was rated significantly higher than formal small group activity. Direct observation methods were the preferred methods for evaluation. Multiple barriers to training and evaluation were elucidated. We developed a consensus taxonomy of domains that were felt to be most essential and reflective of the practice of EM: multitasking, disposition, and patient safety. Learning formats linked to the domains were created and specific examples of local best practices collected. Domain-specific anchors of observable actions for the three domains were created. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus process resulted in the development of a taxonomy of EM-specific domains for teaching and observable tasks for evaluating SBP. The concept of SBP is interlinked with the other general competencies and difficult to separate. Rather than develop specific SBP evaluation tools to measure the competency directly, SBP competency evaluation should be considered one element of a coordinated effort to teach and evaluate the six ACGME general competencies.

Comparison of checklist and anchored global rating instruments for performance rating of simulated pediatric emergencies.

PURPOSE: To compare the psychometric performance of two rating instruments used to assess trainee performance in three clinical scenarios. METHODS: This study was part of a two-phase, randomized trial with a wait-list control condition assessing the effectiveness of a pediatric emergency medicine curriculum targeting general emergency medicine residents. Residents received 6 hours of instruction either before or after the first assessment. Separate pairs of raters completed either a dichotomous checklist for each of three cases or the Global Performance Assessment Tool (GPAT), an anchored multidimensional scale. A fully crossed person×rater×case generalizability study was conducted. The effect of training year on performance is assessed using multivariate analysis of variance. RESULTS: The person and person×case components accounted for most of the score variance for both instruments. Using either instrument, scores demonstrated a small but significant increase as training level increased when analyzed using a multivariate analysis of variance. The inter-rater reliability coefficient was >0.9 for both instruments. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that our checklist and anchored global rating instrument performed in a psychometrically similar fashion with high reliability. As long as proper attention is given to instrument design and testing and rater training, checklists and anchored assessment scales can produce reproducible data for a given population of subjects. The validity of the data arising for either instrument type must be assessed rigorously and with a focus, when practicable, on patient care outcomes.