RESUMO
Background Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is a multistep process that emergency physicians commonly perform. Unfortunately, there is little published in the graduate medical education literature regarding the use of checklists for RSI education. Methods We developed a pre-intubation checklist for RSI preparation and evaluated emergency medicine residents' use of it. We developed the checklist using a three-round modified Delphi process among a group of emergency medicine faculty physicians within our institution. Over a three-year period, residents were randomized into two groups: a "checklist group" and a "without-checklist group." Residents were then evaluated for RSI critical step completion in a simulated critically ill patient by two independent study investigators. Inter-rater reliability kappa scores were calculated. Following completion of the scenario, residents in both groups were asked to complete an anonymous survey. Both groups had access to the checklist at the time of the survey. The survey was used to determine if they found the checklist helpful. Odds ratios with p-values, at an alpha of 0.05 for significance, were computed for checklist items comparing the checklist and without-checklist groups. Data analysis was performed using SAS software (SAS, Cary, NC v 9.4). This study was approved by the authors' Institutional Review Board. Results Each assessment was completed by two investigators. Inter-rater reliability was substantial (κ=0.79). Residents having access to the checklist were more likely to verbalize a critical step with a p-value of < 0.0001 and an odds ratio of 2.17 (95% CI: 1.48, 3.19). The checklist group normalized vital signs prior to intubation in 25/28 (89%, 95% CI: 72.81, 96.29) versus only 6/29 (21%, 95% CI: 9.85, 38.39) with a p-value of <0.0001 in the without-checklist group. The checklist group evaluated for difficult laryngoscopy 26/28 (93%, 95% CI: 77.36, 98.02) versus only 21/29 (72%, CI 95% 54.28, 85.30) with p=0.0223 in the without-checklist group. All of the surveyed residents indicated that the checklist would be helpful for future use in the ED. Conclusion This RSI checklist improved adherence to preparatory steps of RSI. Utilizing a checklist increased evaluation for a difficult airway and normalizing vital signs. Residents found the checklist helpful for ED use.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Emergency medicine (EM) trainees are expected to learn to provide acute care for patients of all ages. The American Council for Graduate Medical Education provides some guidance on topics related to caring for pediatric patients; however, education about pediatric topics varies across residency programs. The goal of this project was to develop a consensus curriculum for teaching pediatric emergency care. METHODS: We recruited 13 physicians from six academic health centers to participate in a three-round electronic modified Delphi project. Participants were selected on the basis of expertise with both EM resident education and pediatric emergency care. The first modified Delphi survey asked participants to generate the core knowledge, skills, and experiences needed to prepare EM residents to effectively treat children in an acute care setting. The qualitative data from the first round was reformulated into a second-round questionnaire. During the second round, participants used rating scales to prioritize the curriculum content proposed during the first round. In round 3, participants were asked to make a determination about each curriculum topic using a three-point scale labeled required, optional, or not needed. RESULTS: The first modified Delphi round yielded 400 knowledge topics, 206 clinical skills, and 44 specific types of experience residents need to prepare for acute pediatric patient care. These were narrowed to 153 topics, 84 skills, and 28 experiences through elimination of redundancy and two rounds of prioritization. The final lists contain topics classified by highly recommended, partially recommended, and not recommended. The partially recommended category is intended to help programs tailor their curriculum to the unique needs of their learners as well as account for variability between 3- and 4-year programs and the amount of time programs allocate to pediatric education. CONCLUSION: The modified Delphi process yielded the broad outline of a consensus core pediatric emergency care curriculum.
