Physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training: A scoping review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Assessment in medical education has changed over time to measure the evolving skills required of current medical practice. Physical and biophysical markers of assessment attempt to use technology to gain insight into medical trainees' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The authors conducted a scoping review to map the literature on the use of physical and biophysical markers of assessment in medical training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors searched seven databases on 1 August 2022, for publications that utilized physical or biophysical markers in the assessment of medical trainees (medical students, residents, fellows, and synonymous terms used in other countries). Physical or biophysical markers included: heart rate and heart rate variability, visual tracking and attention, pupillometry, hand motion analysis, skin conductivity, salivary cortisol, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The authors mapped the relevant literature using Bloom's taxonomy of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and extracted additional data including study design, study environment, and novice vs. expert differentiation from February to June 2023. RESULTS: Of 6,069 unique articles, 443 met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies assessed trainees using heart rate variability (n = 160, 36%) followed by visual attention (n = 143, 32%), hand motion analysis (n = 67, 15%), salivary cortisol (n = 67, 15%), fMRI (n = 29, 7%), skin conductivity (n = 26, 6%), fNIRs (n = 19, 4%), and pupillometry (n = 16, 4%). The majority of studies (n = 167, 38%) analyzed non-technical skills, followed by studies that analyzed technical skills (n = 155, 35%), knowledge (n = 114, 26%), and attitudinal skills (n = 61, 14%). 169 studies (38%) attempted to use physical or biophysical markers to differentiate between novice and expert. CONCLUSION: This review provides a comprehensive description of the current use of physical and biophysical markers in medical education training, including the current technology and skills assessed. Additionally, while physical and biophysical markers have the potential to augment current assessment in medical education, there remains significant gaps in research surrounding reliability, validity, cost, practicality, and educational impact of implementing these markers of assessment.

Cold Anaphylaxis: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Cold anaphylaxis is a severe form of hypersensitivity reaction to cold temperatures. Such reactions include a spectrum of presentations that range from localized symptoms to systemic involvement. The condition can be acquired or heritable, although it may also be idiopathic. Treatment consists of second-generation H1 antihistamines, epinephrine, and supportive care. Prevention involves avoidance of known triggers, most commonly cold immersion due to environment or water exposure. CASE REPORT: We report the case of a 34-year-old man with cold-induced urticaria/anaphylaxis who presented to our emergency department with hypotension and shortness of breath after exposure to cold air after getting out of a shower. He required two doses of intramuscular epinephrine and was ultimately started on an epinephrine infusion. He was admitted to the intensive care unit for anaphylaxis monitoring and was found to have a positive ice cube test, reinforcing the suspected diagnosis. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Cold anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening phenomenon with specific testing. It is occasionally described in the emergency medicine literature. Providers should be aware of the potential for cold anaphylaxis as it can change patient guidance and alter management. This condition can also contribute to otherwise unclear and sudden decompensation in critically ill patients, as has been reported in cases of cold anaphylaxis induced by cold IV infusions.

Acute Illness Associated With Cannabis Use, by Route of Exposure: An Observational Study.

Background: Little is known about the relative harms of edible and inhalable cannabis products. Objective: To describe and compare adult emergency department (ED) visits related to edible and inhaled cannabis exposure. Design: Chart review of ED visits between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2016. Setting: A large urban academic hospital in Colorado. Participants: Adults with ED visits with a cannabis-related International Classification of Diseases, Ninth or 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM), code. Measurements: Patient demographic characteristics, route of exposure, dose, symptoms, length of stay, disposition, discharge diagnoses, and attribution of visit to cannabis. Results: There were 9973 visits with an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM code for cannabis use. Of these, 2567 (25.7%) visits were at least partially attributable to cannabis, and 238 of those (9.3%) were related to edible cannabis. Visits attributable to inhaled cannabis were more likely to be for cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (18.0% vs. 8.4%), and visits attributable to edible cannabis were more likely to be due to acute psychiatric symptoms (18.0% vs. 10.9%), intoxication (48% vs. 28%), and cardiovascular symptoms (8.0% vs. 3.1%). Edible products accounted for 10.7% of cannabis-attributable visits between 2014 and 2016 but represented only 0.32% of total cannabis sales in Colorado (in kilograms of tetrahydrocannabinol) during that period. Limitation: Retrospective study design, single academic center, self-reported exposure data, and limited availability of dose data. Conclusion: Visits attributable to inhaled cannabis are more frequent than those attributable to edible cannabis, although the latter is associated with more acute psychiatric visits and more ED visits than expected. Primary Funding Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Mental Health-related Emergency Department Visits Associated With Cannabis in Colorado.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis legalization in Colorado resulted in increased cannabis-associated health care utilization. Our objective was to examine cooccurrence of cannabis and mental health diagnostic coding in Colorado emergency department (ED) discharges and replicate the study in a subpopulation of ED visits where cannabis involvement and psychiatric diagnosis were confirmed through medical review. METHODS: We collected statewide ED International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification diagnoses from the Colorado Hospital Association and a subpopulation of ED visits from a large, academic hospital from 2012 to 2014. Diagnosis codes identified visits associated with mental health and cannabis. Codes for mental health conditions and cannabis were confirmed by manual records review in the academic hospital subpopulation. Prevalence ratios (PRs) of mental health ED discharges were calculated to compare cannabis-associated visits to those without cannabis. Rates of mental health and cannabis-associated ED discharges were examined over time. RESULTS: Statewide data demonstrated a fivefold higher prevalence of mental health diagnoses in cannabis-associated ED visits (PR = 5.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.27-5.43) compared to visits without cannabis. The hospital subpopulation supported this finding with a fourfold higher prevalence of psychiatric complaints in cannabis attributable ED visits (PR = 4.87, 95% CI = 4.36-5.44) compared to visits not attributable to cannabis. Statewide rates of ED visits associated with both cannabis and mental health significantly increased from 2012 to 2014 from 224.5 to 268.4 per 100,000 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In Colorado, the prevalence of mental health conditions in ED visits with cannabis-associated diagnostic codes is higher than in those without cannabis. There is a need for further research determining if these findings are truly attributed to cannabis or merely coincident with concurrent increased use and availability.