Creation and Implementation of a Mastery Learning Curriculum for Emergency Department Thoracotomy.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) is a lifesaving procedure within the scope of practice of emergency physicians. Because EDT is infrequently performed, emergency medicine (EM) residents lack opportunities to develop procedural competency. There is no current mastery learning curriculum for residents to learn EDT. The purpose of this study was to develop and implement a simulation-based mastery learning curriculum to teach and assess EM residents' performance of the EDT. METHODS: We developed an EDT curriculum using a mastery learning framework. The minimum passing standard (MPS) for a previously developed 22-item checklist was determined using the Mastery Angoff approach. EM residents at a four-year academic EM residency program underwent baseline testing in performing an EDT on a simulation trainer. Performance was scored by two raters using the checklist. Learners then participated in a novel mastery learning EDT curriculum that included an educational video, hands-on instruction, and deliberate practice. After a three-month period, residents then completed initial post testing. Residents who did not meet the minimum passing standard after post testing participated in additional deliberate practice until mastery was obtained. Baseline and post-test scores, and time to completion of the procedure were compared with paired t-tests. RESULTS: Of 56 eligible EM residents, 54 completed baseline testing. Fifty-two residents completed post-testing until mastery was reached. The minimum passing standard was 91.1%, (21/22 items correct on the checklist). No participants met the MPS at the baseline assessment. After completion of the curriculum, all residents subsequently reached the MPS, with deliberate practice sessions not exceeding 40 minutes. Scores from baseline testing to post-testing significantly improved across all postgraduate years from a mean score of 10.2/22 to 21.4/22 (p <0.001). Mean time to complete the procedure improved from baseline testing (6 minutes [min] and 21 seconds [sec], interquartile range [IQR] = 4 min 54 sec - 7 min 51 sec) to post-testing (5 min 19 seconds, interquartile range 4 min 17sec - 6 min 15 sec; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This simulation-based mastery learning curriculum resulted in all residents performing an EDT at a level that met or exceeded the MPS with an overall decrease in time needed to perform the procedure.

Emergency Department Thoracotomy: Development of a Reliable, Validated Checklist for Procedural Training.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) is a rare and challenging procedure. Emergency medicine (EM) residents have limited opportunities to perform the procedure in clinical or educational settings. Standardized, reliable, validated checklists do not exist to evaluate procedural competency. The objectives of this project were twofold: 1) to develop a checklist containing the critical actions for performing an EDT that can be used for future procedural skills training and 2) to evaluate the reliability and validity of the checklist for performing EDT. METHODS: After a literature review, a preliminary 22-item checklist was developed and disseminated to experts in EM and trauma surgery. A modified Delphi method was used to revise the checklist. To assess usability of the checklist, EM and trauma surgery faculty and residents were evaluated performing an EDT while inter-rater reliability was calculated with Cohen's kappa. A Student's t-test was used to compare the performance of participants who had or had not performed a thoracotomy in clinical practice. Item-total correlation was calculated for each checklist item to determine discriminatory ability. RESULTS: A final 22-item checklist was developed for EDT. The overall inter-rater reliability was strong (κ = 0.84) with individual item agreement ranging from moderate to strong (κ = 0.61 to 1.00). Experts (attending physicians and senior residents) performed well on the checklist, achieving an average score of 80% on the checklist. Participants who had performed EDT in clinical practice performed significantly better than those that had not, achieving an average of 80.7% items completed versus 52.3% (p < 0.05). Seventeen of 22 items had an item-total correlation greater than 0.2. CONCLUSIONS: A final 22-item consensus-based checklist was developed for the EDT. Overall inter-rater reliability was strong. This checklist can be used in future studies to serve as a foundation for curriculum development around this important procedure.

Emergency Department-Based Palliative Interventions: A Novel Approach to Palliative Care in the Emergency Department.

Background: Patients with cancer and palliative care needs frequently use the emergency department (ED). ED-based palliative services may extend the reach of palliative care for these patients. Objective: To assess the feasibility and reach of an ED-based palliative intervention (EPI) program. Design: A cross-sectional descriptive study of ED patients with active cancer from January 2017 to August 2017. Subjects: Patients with palliative care needs were identified using an abbreviated 5-question version of the screen for palliative and end-of-life care needs in the ED (5-SPEED). Patients with palliative care needs were then automatically flagged for an EPI as determined by their identified need. Measurements: The primary outcome was the prevalence of palliative care needs among patients with active cancer. Secondary outcomes were the rate of EPI services successfully delivered to ED patients with unmet palliative care needs, ED length of stay (LOS), and repeat ED visits within the next 10 days. Categorical variables were evaluated using chi-squared or Fischer's exact test as appropriate. Continuous variables were evaluated using analysis of variance. Results: Of the 1278 patients with active cancer, 817 (63.9%) completed the 5-SPEED screen. Of the patients who completed the screen, 422 patients (51.7%) had one or more unmet palliative care needs and 167 (39.6%) received an EPI. There were no differences in ED LOS or 10-day repeat ED visit rates between patients who did or did not receive an EPI. Conclusion: This ED-based intervention successfully screened for palliative needs in cancer patients and improved access to specific palliative services without increasing ED LOS.

Women's Night in Emergency Medicine Mentorship Program: A SWOT Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Women in emergency medicine (EM) at all career stages report gender-specific obstacles to satisfaction and advancement. Programs that facilitate longitudinal mentoring, professional development, and networking may ameliorate these barriers. METHODS: We designed and implemented a program for female residents, faculty, and alumnae from our EM training program to enhance social support, leadership training and professional mentorship opportunities. An anonymous, online survey was sent to participants at the end of the academic year, using a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) format. The survey collected free-text responses designed to evaluate the program. RESULTS: Of 43 invited participants, 32 responded (74.4%). Eight themes emerged from the free-text responses and were grouped by SWOT domain. We identified four themes relating to the "strength" domain: 1) creating a dedicated space; 2) networking community; 3) building solidarity; and 4) providing forward guidance. Responses to the "weaknesses" and "threats" questions were combined due to overlapping codes and resulted in three themes: 5) barriers to participation; 6) the threat of poorly structured events lapsing into negativity; and 7) concerns about external optics. A final theme: 8) expansion of program scope was noted in the "opportunity" domain. CONCLUSION: This program evaluation of the Women's Night curriculum demonstrates it was a positive addition to the formal curriculum, providing longitudinal professional development opportunities. Sharing the strengths of the program, along with identified weaknesses, threats, and opportunities for advancement allows other departments to learn from this experience and implement similar models that use existing intellectual and social capital.

Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update.

OBJECTIVES: To revise 2010 guidance on grading the strength of evidence (SOE) of the effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other preventive and therapeutic interventions in systematic reviews produced by the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program, established by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-EPC working group reviewed authoritative systems for grading SOE [primarily the approach from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group] and conducted extensive discussions with GRADE and other experts. RESULTS: Updated guidance continues to be conceptually similar to GRADE. Reviewers are to evaluate SOE separately for each major treatment comparison for each major outcome. We added reporting bias as a required domain and retained study limitations (risk of bias), consistency, directness, and precision (and three optional domains). Additional guidance covers scoring consistency, precision, and reporting bias, grading bodies of evidence with randomized controlled trials and observational studies, evaluating single study bodies of evidence, using studies with high risk of bias, and presenting findings with greater clarity and transparency. SOE is graded high, moderate, low, or insufficient, reflecting reviewers' confidence in the findings for a specific treatment comparison and outcome. CONCLUSION: No single approach for grading SOE suits all reviews, but a more consistent and transparent approach to reporting summary information will make reviews more useful to the broad range of audiences that AHRQ's work aims to reach. EPC working groups will consider ongoing challenges and modify guidance as needed, on issues such as combining trials and observational studies in bodies of evidence, weighting domains, and combining qualitative and quantitative syntheses.

A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest.

OBJECTIVES: Groups such as the Institute of Medicine emphasize the importance of attention to financial conflicts of interest. Little guidance exists, however, on managing the risk of bias for systematic reviews from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. We sought to create practical guidance on ensuring adequate clinical or content expertise while maintaining independence of judgment on systematic review teams. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Workgroup members built on existing guidance from international and domestic institutions on managing conflicts of interest. We then developed practical guidance in the form of an instrument for each potential source of conflict. RESULTS: We modified the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest to arrive at a definition specific to nonfinancial conflicts. We propose questions for funders and systematic review principal investigators to evaluate the risk of nonfinancial conflicts of interest. Once risks have been identified, options for managing conflicts include disclosure followed by no change in the systematic review team or activities, inclusion on the team along with other members with differing viewpoints to ensure diverse perspectives, exclusion from certain activities, and exclusion from the project entirely. CONCLUSION: The feasibility and utility of this approach to ensuring needed expertise on systematic reviews and minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest must be investigated.

Interventions to improve adherence to self-administered medications for chronic diseases in the United States: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimum medication adherence is common in the United States and leads to serious negative health consequences but may respond to intervention. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of patient, provider, systems, and policy interventions that aim to improve medication adherence for chronic health conditions in the United States. DATA SOURCES: Eligible peer-reviewed publications from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library indexed through 4 June 2012 and additional studies from reference lists and technical experts. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of patient, provider, or systems interventions to improve adherence to long-term medications and nonrandomized studies of policy interventions to improve medication adherence. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently selected, extracted data from, and rated the risk of bias of relevant studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: The evidence was synthesized separately for each clinical condition; within each condition, the type of intervention was synthesized. Two reviewers graded the strength of evidence by using established criteria. From 4124 eligible abstracts, 62 trials of patient-, provider-, or systems-level interventions evaluated 18 types of interventions; another 4 observational studies and 1 trial of policy interventions evaluated the effect of reduced medication copayments or improved prescription drug coverage. Clinical conditions amenable to multiple approaches to improving adherence include hypertension, heart failure, depression, and asthma. Interventions that improve adherence across multiple clinical conditions include policy interventions to reduce copayments or improve prescription drug coverage, systems interventions to offer case management, and patient-level educational interventions with behavioral support. LIMITATIONS: Studies were limited to adults with chronic conditions (excluding HIV, AIDS, severe mental illness, and substance abuse) in the United States. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity hindered quantitative data pooling. CONCLUSION: Reduced out-of-pocket expenses, case management, and patient education with behavioral support all improved medication adherence for more than 1 condition. Evidence is limited on whether these approaches are broadly applicable or affect longterm medication adherence and health outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 4: medication adherence interventions: comparative effectiveness).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of patient, provider, and systems interventions (Key Question [KQ] 1) or policy interventions (KQ 2) in improving medication adherence for an array of chronic health conditions. For interventions that are effective in improving adherence, we then assessed their effectiveness in improving health, health care utilization, and adverse events. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library. Additional studies were identified from reference lists and technical experts. REVIEW METHODS: Two people independently selected, extracted data from, and rated the risk of bias of relevant trials and systematic reviews. We synthesized the evidence for effectiveness separately for each clinical condition, and within each condition, by type of intervention. We also evaluated the prevalence of intervention components across clinical conditions and the effectiveness of interventions for a range of vulnerable populations. Two reviewers graded the strength of evidence using established criteria. RESULTS: We found a total of 62 eligible studies (58 trials and 4 observational studies) from our review of 3,979 abstracts. These studies included patients with diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, heart failure, myocardial infarction, asthma, depression, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, musculoskeletal diseases, and multiple chronic conditions. Fifty-seven trials of patient, provider, or systems interventions (KQ 1) evaluated 20 different types of interventions; 4 observational studies and one trial of policy interventions (KQ 2) evaluated the effect of reduced out-of-pocket expenses or improved prescription drug coverage. We found the most consistent evidence of improvement in medication adherence for interventions to reduce out-of-pocket expenses or improve prescription drug coverage, case management, and educational interventions across clinical conditions. Within clinical conditions, we found the strongest support for self-management of medications for short-term improvement in adherence for asthma patients; collaborative care or case management programs for short-term improvement of adherence and to improve symptoms for patients taking depression medications; and pharmacist-led approaches for hypertensive patients to improve systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse interventions offer promising approaches to improving medication adherence for chronic conditions, particularly for the short term. Evidence on whether these approaches have broad applicability for clinical conditions and populations is limited, as is evidence regarding long-term medication adherence or health outcomes.