Simulation-based Assessment to Reliably Identify Key Resident Performance Attributes.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining reliable and valid information on resident performance is critical to patient safety and training program improvement. The goals were to characterize important anesthesia resident performance gaps that are not typically evaluated, and to further validate scores from a multiscenario simulation-based assessment. METHODS: Seven high-fidelity scenarios reflecting core anesthesiology skills were administered to 51 first-year residents (CA-1s) and 16 third-year residents (CA-3s) from three residency programs. Twenty trained attending anesthesiologists rated resident performances using a seven-point behaviorally anchored rating scale for five domains: (1) formulate a clear plan, (2) modify the plan under changing conditions, (3) communicate effectively, (4) identify performance improvement opportunities, and (5) recognize limits. A second rater assessed 10% of encounters. Scores and variances for each domain, each scenario, and the total were compared. Low domain ratings (1, 2) were examined in detail. RESULTS: Interrater agreement was 0.76; reliability of the seven-scenario assessment was r = 0.70. CA-3s had a significantly higher average total score (4.9 ± 1.1 vs. 4.6 ± 1.1, P = 0.01, effect size = 0.33). CA-3s significantly outscored CA-1s for five of seven scenarios and domains 1, 2, and 3. CA-1s had a significantly higher proportion of worrisome ratings than CA-3s (chi-square = 24.1, P < 0.01, effect size = 1.50). Ninety-eight percent of residents rated the simulations more educational than an average day in the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity of the assessment to CA-1 versus CA-3 performance differences for most scenarios and domains supports validity. No differences, by experience level, were detected for two domains associated with reflective practice. Smaller score variances for CA-3s likely reflect a training effect; however, worrisome performance scores for both CA-1s and CA-3s suggest room for improvement.

Infantile myofibroma or lymphatic malformation: differential diagnosis of neonatal cystic cervicofacial lesions.

A 5-day-old male neonate was referred to our vascular anomalies center with a large cystic submandibular mass. History and physical examination and ultrasonographic results indicated the diagnosis to be macrocystic lymphatic malformation. Consequently, the child was treated with sclerotherapy and subtotal excision. The histopathological examination result showed that the lesion was infantile myofibroma. This diagnostic error was attributed to atypical features of infantile myofibroma in this child: unusually large cysts, rapid enlargement, and coagulopathy. This report expands the clinical spectrum of infantile myofibromatosis and suggests its consideration in the differential diagnosis of neonatal cystic cervicofacial lesions.

Dexmedetomidine for pediatric sedation for computed tomography imaging studies.

Dexmedetomidine is a sedative with limited experience in the pediatric population. This is the first study that prospectively evaluates the sedation profile of a dexmedetomidine pilot program for pediatric sedation for radiological imaging studies. In March 2005, our hospital sedation committee approved the replacement of IV pentobarbital with dexmedetomidine as the standard of care for CT imaging. Detailed Quality Assurance (QA) data sheets collect relevant information on each patient, which is then logged into a computerized sedation database. After IRB approval, all QA data was accessed. Sixty-two patients with a mean age of 2.8 years (SD = 1.8, range 0.5-9.7) received IV (IV) dexmedetomidine administered as a 2 mcg/kg loading dose over 10 minutes, followed by repeat boluses of 2 mcg/kg over 10 minutes until target of Ramsay Sedation Score 4 (RSS) achieved. Patients were then maintained on 1 mcg/kg/hr infusion until imaging is completed. Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that compared to pre-sedation values, the heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure decreased an average of 15% during bolus, infusion and recovery (P < 0.01). No significant changes were observed in respiratory rate or end-tidal CO2. Mean recovery time was 32 +/- 18 minutes. Based on our pilot results, dexmedetomidine may provide a reliable and effective method of providing sedation.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of port removal outside of the operating room among pediatric patients.

PURPOSE: The current emphasis on fiscally responsible health spending in the era of the Affordable Care Act and other health care reform necessitates cost-conscious delivery of care. "Value" in health care is defined as the quality of care divided by the cost. As such, health systems optimize value by providing the most cost-effective care possible without sacrificing safety or outcomes. Elective, minimal risk surgical procedures in children may be value-enhanced by moving from an operating room (OR) to a more cost-efficient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and cost of performing the removal of implantable central venous access devices ("ports") in locations other than the main OR. METHODS: We compared port removal at three sites: 1. Main OR, 2. Satellite OR, and 3. Clinic Procedure Room. This was a mixed-methods study including a retrospective review of medical records and prospective observation/interviewing. To calculate cost without the inherent biases of hospital charges, costs, and payments, we utilized the methodology of time-driven activity based costing. Specifically, we recorded time spent by the patient in hospital facilities and with health care personnel. This duration was then weighted with the hourly cost of each health care professional and hospital space. The Mann-Whitney U test compared time and cost across the three sites. Overall cost at each site was divided by overall cost at the referent site (Main OR) to obtain a ratio of cost savings. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients (40 per site) were included in the analysis. Demographic and clinical factors were not significantly different between sites. No complication occurred with port removal at any site. Time of the entire care episode was significantly decreased in the Clinic (median 161min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 134-188min), compared to the Main OR (median 235min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 209-251min) or Satellite OR (median 228min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 211-245min). Overall cost was decreased by 25% (95% CI: 13-34%) at the Clinic and by 6% (95% CI: -2-11%) at the Satellite OR, compared to the Main OR (referent, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: In our study, port removal in the Clinic Procedure Room was not associated with increased risk of negative outcomes. Shifting port removal from the Main OR to the Clinic may result in substantial cost savings.