External vs Internal Focus of Attention in Procedural Skills Learning: A Randomized Study.

PURPOSE: The Optimizing Performance Through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning theory postulates that directing attention to the intended movement effect or outcome (external focus) is more effective than directing attention to the internal body motion or body part (internal focus). This study compared external vs internal focus of attention as novice students learned ultrasound-guided peripheral cannulation. The authors hypothesized that conditions promoting an external (vs internal) focus of attention would result in better performance on immediate and delayed (retention) testing. METHOD: The authors conducted a randomized, experimental study from October 2022 to February 2023 comparing external and internal focus using ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation followed by practice using an ultrasound training block. Undergraduate health science students performed 4 practice trials with instructions to focus on the needle tip (external focus) or their hands (internal focus), followed by an immediate assessment and a retention assessment 2 weeks later. The primary outcome was time to successful cannulation. Results were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and parametric survival analysis regression (accelerated failure time) models. RESULTS: Seventy participants completed the immediate assessment. The external focus group completed successful cannulation a mean of 2.33 times faster (95% CI = 1.47, 3.67; P < .001) than those in the internal focus group (median time, 12.0 vs 29.5 seconds). Results also favored the external focus group during practice, with the external focus group successfully completing the task a mean of 1.83 times faster (95% CI = 1.04, 3.21; P = .04) than the internal focus group. In the retention assessment, the external focus group successfully completed the task a mean of 2.37 times faster (95% CI = 1.19, 4.74; P = .02) than the internal focus group. CONCLUSIONS: External focus of attention compared with internal focus of attention improves medical motor skill learning in novice learners.

Does needle positioning with magnetic field induction improve central venous catheterization performance by novice learners?

OBJECTIVE: The novel ultrasound magnetic needle navigation technique can visualize the entire needle and identify its projected trajectory. We hypothesized that this technique increases the first-attempt success rate of central venous puncture by novice learners compared with the conventional needle navigation technique. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, controlled trial with a crossover design included 50 participants with limited prior experience in US-guided procedures. Participants were randomly assigned to novel or conventional technique groups and asked to perform central venous cannulation in a phantom task trainer. After the first successful attempt, participants were allocated to the other technique group. RESULTS: Although participants in the novel technique group had a higher first-attempt success rate than did those in the conventional technique group, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.17). The total number of attempts also did not significantly differ (p = 0.16). The conventional technique group had more needle redirections (p = 0.01) and a longer time to successful cannulation (p = 0.01). The number of adverse effects (p = 0.32) did not differ between groups. Participant confidence levels were higher in the novel technique group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic needle navigation can reduce the number of needle redirections, shorten the time to successful cannulation, and increase confidence levels by novice learners for successful US-guided central venous access.

Systematic Review of Procedural Skill Simulation in Health Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

ABSTRACT: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have adopted procedural skill simulation, with researchers increasingly investigating simulation efforts in resource-strained settings. We aim to summarize the current state of procedural skill simulation research in LMICs focusing on methodology, clinical area, types of outcomes and cost, cost-effectiveness, and overall sustainability. We performed a comprehensive literature review of original articles that assessed procedural skill simulation from database inception until April 2022.From 5371 screened articles, 262 were included in this review. All included studies were in English. Most studies were observational cohort studies (72.9%) and focused on obstetrics and neonatal medicine (32.4%). Most measured outcome was the process of task performance (56.5%). Several studies mentioned cost (38.9%) or sustainability (29.8%). However, few articles included actual monetary cost information (11.1%); only 1 article assessed cost-effectiveness. Based on our review, future research of procedural skill simulation in LMICS should focus on more rigorous research, cost assessments, and on less studied areas.

Autonomy and focus of attention in medical motor skills learning: a randomized experiment.

BACKGROUND: The 'OPTIMAL' (Optimizing Performance Through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning) theory of motor learning suggests that autonomy, external focus of attention, and perceived competence can improve learning of simple motor tasks. The authors hypothesized that enhanced (vs. routine) autonomy and external (vs. internal) focus of attention would improve first-try performance of two medical motor tasks. METHODS: The authors conducted a randomized two-by-two factorial design study with high school students as participants. Task instructions promoted either enhanced or routine autonomy, and either external or internal focus of attention. These conditions were replicated in a crossover design for two common medical tasks (chest compressions on a manikin and a Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery peg transfer task). Primary outcomes were objective measures of task performance (chest compression deviation from target depth; peg transfer time with penalties for errors). Secondary outcomes included subjective perceptions of confidence, autonomy, and workload. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three high school students participated in this study. The primary outcomes concerning enhanced vs. routine autonomy demonstrated no statistically significant difference in either task (chest compression depth deviation: difference -0.7 mm [score range 0 to 37.5 mm]; 95% confidence interval (CI95) -3.85, 2.41; p = .65; peg transfer penalized time: rate ratio 1.03; CI95 0.91, 1.31; p = .79). The authors likewise found no statistically significant difference for external vs. internal focus of attention (depth deviation: difference 1.1 mm; CI95 -2.04, 4.17; p = .50; penalized time: rate ratio 0.89; CI95 0.75, 1.13; p = .33). The authors found no statistically significant differences for either comparison in confidence, autonomy and workload (p > .09; differences ranged from -0.83 to 0.79 [scale range 0 to 10]). CONCLUSIONS: First-try performance of chest compressions and peg transfer by novice learners is not significantly affected by enhanced (vs. routine) autonomy or external (vs. internal) focus of attention.

Addressing Barriers to Telemedicine Use in Rural Emergency Medicine: Leveraging In Situ Simulation.

Introduction: Acute care telemedicine is a critical resource for rural and community Emergency Medicine (EM) providers. To address potential barriers and promote use of these services throughout our health system Emergency Departments (EDs), we embed telemedicine consultations within in situ simulations. Materials and Methods: Care teams in health system EDs participated in multidisciplinary in situ simulations that focused on Difficult Airway management or Obstetric Emergencies. Physicians in EM and Neonatology at the referral center were available for assistance via telemedicine consultation. Participants were then surveyed regarding their experience with the telemedicine consultation during the simulations. Results: Participants reported increased likelihood to use telemedicine as well as increased understanding of the technology, awareness of available consultation services, and comfort interacting with the consultant. Conclusions: Embedding telemedicine consultations into in situ EM simulations is an effective approach to address implementation barriers and may promote increased use of telemedicine services among rural and community EM providers.

Comparison of dyad versus individual simulation-based training on stress, anxiety, cognitive load, and performance: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dyad learning has been shown to be an effective tool for teaching procedural skills, but little is known about how dyad learning may impact the stress, anxiety, and cognitive load that a student experiences when learning in this manner. In this pilot study, we investigate the relationship between dyad training on stress, anxiety, cognitive load, and performance in a simulated bradycardia scenario. METHODS: Forty-one fourth-year medical school trainees were randomized as dyads (n = 24) or individuals (n = 17) for an education session on day 1. Reassessment occurred on day 4 and was completed as individuals for all trainees. Primary outcomes were cognitive load (Paas scale), stress (Cognitive Appraisal Ratio), and anxiety levels (abbreviated State-Trait Anxiety Inventory). Secondary outcomes were time-based performance metrics. RESULTS: On day 1 we observed significant differences for change in anxiety and stress measured before and after the training scenario between groups. Individuals compared to dyads had larger mean increases in anxiety, (19.6 versus 7.6 on 80-point scale, p = 0.02) and stress ratio (1.8 versus 0.9, p = 0.045). On the day 4 post-intervention assessment, no significant differences were observed between groups. Secondary outcomes were significant for shorter time to diagnosis of bradycardia (p = 0.01) and time to initiation of pacing (p = 0.04) in the dyad group on day 1. On day 4, only time to recognizing the indication for pacing was significantly shorter for individual training (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.26, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Dyad training results in lower stress and anxiety levels with similar performance compared to individual training.

A Comprehensive Departmental Care Review Model: Requirements, Structure, and Flow.

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine, the National Patient Safety Foundation, and The Joint Commission have advocated for increased systematic care review to inform future quality improvement. Developing a system to efficiently gather meaningful feedback, review care, and identify areas for improvement can take years to construct. Yet, these systems are vital to reducing future medical error. CONTEXT, HISTORY, AND DEVELOPMENT: In this article, the authors present a refined intradepartmental system of retrospective care review. The team created and iteratively improved this model for more than 10 years. Herein, key aspects and benefits of the system are described. CARE REVIEW SYSTEM: A successful care review system should include a broad catchment for cases to review, direct input from multidisciplinary staff involved in each case, a standardized evaluation and feedback process, a system to translate identified gaps into practice improvement, and development of a psychologically safe space for discussions to occur. Resources required to build this system include a quality specialist, a panel of physician and nurse reviewers, and administrative assistance. Blinding cases and electronic blinded polling technology can enhance participation and reduce bias in case assessment. CONCLUSION: The authors believe that this process for care review can help hospital systems of varying resource levels produce high-quality case review and thereby activate practice improvement to prevent downstream medical errors.

Barrier Enclosure for Endotracheal Intubation in a Simulated COVID-19 Scenario: A Crossover Study.

INTRODUCTION: Barrier enclosures have been developed to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare providers during intubation, but little is known about their impact on procedure performance. We sought to determine whether a barrier enclosure delays time to successful intubation by experienced airway operators. METHODS: We conducted a crossover simulation study at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants watched a four-minute video, practiced one simulated intubation with a barrier enclosure, and then completed one intubation with and one without the barrier enclosure (randomized to determine order). The primary outcome measure was time from placement of the video laryngoscope at the lips to first delivered ventilation. Secondary outcomes were periprocedural complications and participant responses to a post-study survey. RESULTS: Proceduralists (n = 50) from emergency medicine and anesthesiology had median intubation times of 23.6 seconds with practice barrier enclosure, 20.5 seconds with barrier enclosure, and 16.7 seconds with no barrier. Intubation with barrier enclosure averaged 4.5 seconds longer (95% confidence interval, 2.7-6.4, p < .001) than without, but was less than the predetermined clinical significance threshold of 10 seconds. Three complications occurred, all during the practice intubation. Barrier enclosure made intubation more challenging according to 48%, but 90% indicated they would consider using it in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Experienced airway operators performed intubation using a barrier enclosure with minimal increased time to procedure completion in this uncomplicated airway model. Given potential to reduce droplet spread, use of a barrier enclosure may be an acceptable adjunct to endotracheal intubation for those familiar with its use.

Clinical care review systems in healthcare: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical care review is the process of retrospectively examining potential errors or gaps in medical care, aiming for future practice improvement. The objective of our systematic review is to identify the current state of care review reported in peer-reviewed publications and to identify domains that contribute to successful systems of care review. METHODS: A librarian designed and conducted a comprehensive literature search of eight electronic databases. We evaluated publications from January 1, 2000, through May 31, 2016, and identified common domains for care review. Sixteen domains were identified for further abstraction. RESULTS: We found that there were few publications that described a comprehensive care review system and more focus on individual pathways within the overall systems. There is inconsistent inclusion of the identified domains of care review. CONCLUSION: While guidelines for some aspects of care review exist and have gained traction, there is no comprehensive standardized process for care review with widespread implementation.

Changing Systems Through Effective Teams: A Role for Simulation.

Teams are the building blocks of the healthcare system, with growing evidence linking the quality of healthcare to team effectiveness, and team effectiveness to team training. Simulation has been identified as an effective modality for team training and assessment. Despite this, there are gaps in methodology, measurement, and implementation that prevent maximizing the impact of simulation modalities on team performance. As part of the 2017 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Catalyzing System Change Through Health Care Simulation: Systems, Competency, and Outcomes," we explored the impact of simulation on various aspects of team effectiveness. The consensus process included an extensive literature review, group discussions, and the conference "workshop" involving emergency medicine physicians, medical educators, and team science experts. The objectives of this work were to: 1) explore the antecedents and processes that support team effectiveness, 2) summarize the current role of simulation in developing and understanding team effectiveness, and 3) identify research targets to further improve team-based training and assessment, with the ultimate goal of improving healthcare systems.

Communicating Value in Simulation: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Return on Investment.

Value-based health care requires a balancing of medical outcomes with economic value. Administrators need to understand both the clinical and the economic effects of potentially expensive simulation programs to rationalize the costs. Given the often-disparate priorities of clinical educators relative to health care administrators, justifying the value of simulation requires the use of economic analyses few physicians have been trained to conduct. Clinical educators need to be able to present thorough economic analyses demonstrating returns on investment and cost-effectiveness to effectively communicate with administrators. At the 2017 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Catalyzing System Change through Health Care Simulation: Systems, Competency, and Outcomes," our breakout session critically evaluated the cost-benefit and return on investment of simulation. In this paper we provide an overview of some of the economic tools that a clinician may use to present the value of simulation training to financial officers and other administrators in the economic terms they understand. We also define three themes as a call to action for research related to cost-benefit analysis in simulation as well as four specific research questions that will help guide educators and hospital leadership to make decisions on the value of simulation for their system or program.

Communicating Value in Simulation: Cost Benefit Analysis and Return on Investment.

Value-based health care requires a balancing of medical outcomes with economic value. Administrators need to understand both the clinical and economic effects of potentially expensive simulation programs to rationalize the costs. Given the often-disparate priorities of clinical educators relative to health care administrators, justifying the value of simulation requires the use of economic analyses few physicians have been trained to conduct. Clinical educators need to be able to present thorough economic analyses demonstrating returns on investment and cost effectiveness to effectively communicate with administrators. At the 2017 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Catalyzing System Change through Health Care Simulation: Systems, Competency, and Outcomes", our breakout session critically evaluated the cost benefit and return on investment of simulation. In this paper we provide an overview of some of the economic tools that a clinician may use to present the value of simulation training to financial officers and other administrators in the economic terms they understand. We also define three themes as a call to action for research related to cost benefit analysis in simulation as well as four specific research questions that will help guide educators and hospital leadership to make decisions on the value of simulation for their system or program. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Securing a Chest Tube Properly: A Simple Framework for Teaching Emergency Medicine Residents and Assessing Their Technical Abilities.

BACKGROUND: Quality-improvement efforts at our institution have identified chest tube dislodgement as a preventable complication of tube thoracostomy. Because proper fixation techniques are not well described in the literature and are seldom formally taught, techniques vary among residents. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to develop and test a framework for teaching and assessing chest tube securement. METHODS: A repeated-measures study design was used. At baseline, 19 emergency medicine residents (program years 1-3) placed and secured a chest tube in a cadaver. After a 45-min proficiency-based teaching session using a low-cost chest tube simulator (approximate cost, $5), each resident again placed and secured a chest tube in a cadaver, followed by 3-month retention testing. All securements were evaluated by two raters using a four-point checklist and a five-point global assessment scale (GAS). The checklist addressed suture selection, tying knots down to the tube, wound approximation, and tube displacement relative to skin. RESULTS: After the initial educational intervention, median scores for the group improved significantly over baseline for the GAS (p < 0.001), checklist (p < 0.001), and amount of displacement (p = 0.01). At 3 months, GAS, checklist, and displacement scores did not differ significantly from the immediate post-test scores. Inter-rater reliability was substantial, with weighted κ values of .77 for the GAS and .70 for the checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of chest tube securement by emergency medicine residents can be significantly improved with an inexpensive chest tube simulator and a brief workshop. The four-point checklist served as a reliable and effective means for teaching and assessing chest tube securement.

Effect of spinal needle characteristics on measurement of spinal canal opening pressure.

OBJECTIVE: A wide variety of spinal needles are used in clinical practice. Little is currently known regarding the impact of needle length, gauge, and tip type on the needle's ability to measure spinal canal opening pressure. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between these factors and the opening-pressure measurement or time to obtain an opening pressure. METHODS: Thirteen distinct spinal needles, chosen to isolate the effects of length, gauge, and needle-point type, were prospectively tested on a lumbar puncture simulator. The key outcomes were the opening-pressure measurement and the time required to obtain that measure. Pressures were recorded at 10-s intervals until 3 consecutive, identical readings were observed. RESULTS: Time to measure opening pressure increased with increasing spinal needle length, increasing gauge, and the Quincke-type (cutting) point (P<0.001 for all). The time to measurement ranged from 30s to 530s, yet all needle types were able to obtain a consistent opening pressure measure. CONCLUSION: Although opening pressure estimates are unlikely to vary markedly by needle type, the time required to obtain the measurement increased with increasing needle length and gauge and with Quincke-type needles.

Sharing simulation-based training courses between institutions: opportunities and challenges.

BACKGROUND: Sharing simulation-based training (SBT) courses between institutions could reduce time to develop new content but also presents challenges. We evaluate the process of sharing SBT courses across institutions in a mixed method study estimating the time required and identifying barriers and potential solutions. METHODS: Two US academic medical institutions explored instructor experiences with the process of sharing four courses (two at each site) using personal interviews and a written survey and estimated the time needed to develop new content vs implement existing SBT courses. RESULTS: The project team spent approximately 618 h creating a collaboration infrastructure to support course sharing. Sharing two SBT courses was estimated to save 391 h compared with developing two new courses. In the qualitative analysis, participants noted the primary benefit of course sharing was time savings. Barriers included difficulty finding information and understanding overall course flow. Suggestions for improvement included establishing a standardized template, clearly identifying the target audience, providing a course overview, communicating with someone familiar with the original SBT course, employing an intuitive file-sharing platform, and considering local culture, context, and needs. CONCLUSIONS: Sharing SBT courses between institutions is feasible but not without challenges. An initial investment in a sharing infrastructure may facilitate downstream time savings compared with developing content de novo.

Predictors of medical school clerkship performance: a multispecialty longitudinal analysis of standardized examination scores and clinical assessments.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that poor performance on standardized tests before and early in medical school is associated with poor performance on standardized tests later in medical school and beyond. This study aimed to explore relationships between standardized examination scores (before and during medical school) with test and clinical performance across all core clinical clerkships. METHODS: We evaluated characteristics of 435 students at Mayo Medical School (MMS) who matriculated 2000-2009 and for whom undergraduate grade point average, medical college aptitude test (MCAT), medical school standardized tests (United States Medical Licensing Examination [USMLE] 1 and 2; National Board of Medical Examiners [NBME] subject examination), and faculty assessments were available. We assessed the correlation between scores and assessments and determined USMLE 1 cutoffs predictive of poor performance (≤10th percentile) on the NBME examinations. We also compared the mean faculty assessment scores of MMS students vs visiting students, and for the NBME, we determined the percentage of MMS students who scored at or below the tenth percentile of first-time national examinees. RESULTS: MCAT scores correlated robustly with USMLE 1 and 2, and USMLE 1 and 2 independently predicted NBME scores in all clerkships. USMLE 1 cutoffs corresponding to poor NBME performance ranged from 220 to 223. USMLE 1 scores were similar among MMS and visiting students. For most academic years and clerkships, NBME scores were similar for MMS students vs all first-time examinees. CONCLUSIONS: MCAT, USMLE 1 and 2, and subsequent clinical performance parameters were correlated with NBME scores across all core clerkships. Even more interestingly, faculty assessments correlated with NBME scores, affirming patient care as examination preparation. USMLE 1 scores identified students at risk of poor performance on NBME subject examinations, facilitating and supporting implementation of remediation before the clinical years. MMS students were representative of medical students across the nation.

Ultrasound evaluation of appendicitis: importance of the 3 × 2 table for outcome reporting.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a relatively high frequency of appendix nonvisualization when using ultrasound to diagnose appendicitis, many studies either fail to report these results or inconsistently analyze outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine the most transparent and accurate way of reporting and analyzing ultrasound results for the diagnosis of appendicitis. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of emergency department patients age 18 years or older who underwent right lower quadrant ultrasonography from September 2010 to October 2011. Patient characteristics, imaging, pathology, and follow-up data were analyzed. Test characteristics were calculated using conventional 2 × 2 contingency table analysis excluding inconclusive ultrasound results and an intention-to-diagnose approach with a 3 × 2 table. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were included. Forty-four (68%) patients had a nonvisualized appendix resulting in an overall diagnostic yield of 32%. Twenty-one patients had a visualized appendix (14 [22%] negative and 7 [11%] positive for appendicitis). Using 2 × 2 contingency table analysis, sensitivity and specificity were 100%. Using the 3 × 2 table with and the intention-to-diagnose principle, sensitivity was 70% and specificity was 25%. Three (7%) of 44 patients with a nonvisualized appendix had appendicitis (likelihood ratio = 0.40). DISCUSSION: We suggest reporting ultrasound results using a 3 × 2 table (including nonvisualized findings) but using the traditional 2 × 2 type of analysis for test characteristic calculations. This approach allows for the determination of diagnostic yield and calculation of likelihood ratios when the appendix is not visualized. This approach to reporting should be considered for all types of diagnostic ultrasound studies.