A prospective analysis of time to screen protocol ECGs in adult Emergency Department triage patients.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of ST elevation MI (STEMI) in emergency departments (ED) via electrocardiogram (ECG) expedites intervention. While screening of all ED chest pain ECGs should be obtained within 10 minutes per the American Heart Association, 40% of all ECGs are software-analyzed as "Normal" or "Otherwise Normal." However, the reliability of this analysis and the time for confirmation read are uncertain. This study investigates the time necessary for Patient Care Technicians (PCTs) to deliver ECGs to ED attendings to confirm automated interpretation. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic ED. All patients ≥18 years who had a triage ECG were included. ECGs were obtained within 10 min of arrival, time-stamped, delivered for ED attending review and time-stamped upon PCT return to triage. Data were entered into REDCap and analyzed using StatPlus. RESULTS: During the 4-month study, 1768 ECGs were collected. Distribution of automated readings was: "Normal ECG" 33.7%; "Otherwise Normal ECG" 11.2%; and "borderline/abnormal" 55.1%. The median time necessary for PCTs to confirm a screening ECG was 2.8 min (IQR 2,4) with attending physicians interrupted an average of 14.6 times per day. CONCLUSION: Screening of triage ECGs is time-intensive and compounds the frequency of physician interruptions. Although findings are not generalizable, the impact of these interruptions on patient care and safety is paramount and universal. Future directions include validating the reliability of "Normal" and "Otherwise Normal" ECG automated readings to obviate the need to interrupt ED physician for expedited screening confirmation.

A nationwide survey of emergency medicine resident workflow efficiency: Are training programs teaching residents to be efficient?

BACKGROUND: Workflow efficiency (WFE) is essential to the practice of emergency medicine (EM), but a standardized approach to measuring and teaching it during residency is lacking. In this study we sought to describe how EM residency programs in the United States currently measure and teach WFE and to assess the relative importance of WFE teaching to EM residency program leaders. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of all accredited EM residency training programs in the United States in Fall 2019. We invited all allopathic EM residency programs to participate in the study by directly emailing program directors and assistant/associate program directors. We conducted the study and performed descriptive statistics using SurveyMonkey software. RESULTS: We received a total of 133 responses out of 190 total programs (70%) with proportionate representation from 3- and 4-year programs and all regions of the United States. When asked to what extent teaching efficiency should be a priority compared to other educational goals, 65% of program leaders responded with "significant" or "moderate" priority. Most EM programs collect WFE data on their residents, either by tracking patients per hour (78%) or by written evaluations (59%). Common methods for providing WFE data to residents were: "individual data provided along with deidentified rank" (35%), "data provided only during private feedback meetings" (26%), and "no data or rank provided to residents" (16%). Regarding targeted WFE teaching to residents, 88% reported utilizing general on-shift teaching, 48% reported teaching WFE during formal didactics, and 45% during dedicated private feedback sessions. CONCLUSION: This national study of allopathic U.S. EM programs suggests that most EM program leaders do value WFE teaching. However, we found no consistent approach among programs for tracking or distributing resident WFE data, and many programs lack a formalized way to teach efficiency to their residents.