Keeping up with the literature: A current practice survey and qualitative needs assessment among emergency physicians.

Purpose: Physicians face the challenge of staying current with a rapidly growing body of evidence and applying it to their practice. How emergency physicians (EPs) do so is unknown. The authors sought to describe and assess needs around EP patterns of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and continuing medical education (CME) resource use. Methods: The authors conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional study in 2019 across 12 tertiary care, community, and suburban emergency department (ED) sites in the greater area of Edmonton. Information on EBM/CME resource use along with barriers and facilitators to staying current was gathered using a rigorously developed survey tool, distributed electronically and by mail. Responses were tabulated and subgroups analyzed using MANOVA and ANOVA tests. Thematic analysis of comments used a phenomenological lens. Results: A total of 118 EPs (40.1%) completed the survey. Listening to podcasts, attending EM conferences, and subscription-based resources were preferred for staying current. Resource use differed by years in practice but not by age, sex, training background, or site type. EBM had an important impact on respondents' practice (average rating 3.8 out of 5, with 5 indicating "practice changing"). Time was an important barrier. Most (62.7%) felt that they did not spend enough time, despite spending a median of 4 to 5 h monthly on EBM. Facilitators (including journal club summaries or lists of practice-relevant papers) had only moderate impacts. Thematic analysis found three themes (importance of EBM, implementation challenges, and dissemination of EBM) and 13 subthemes. Conclusion: EPs preferentially chose podcasts, conferences, and subscription-based resources to stay current with EBM; time was the biggest barrier. These findings help ED leads and educators tailor CME to physician learning preferences to maximize application of EBM to clinical practice. The next steps include developing/curating resources and disseminating the survey on a larger scale to identify opportunities for shared virtual resources.

Pet therapy in the emergency department and ambulatory care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pet therapy, or animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), has demonstrated positive effects for patients, families, and health care providers (HCPs) in inpatient settings. However, the evidence supporting AAIs in emergency or ambulatory care settings is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of AAIs on patient, family, and HCP experience in these settings. METHODS: We searched (from inception to May 2020) Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, plus gray literature, for studies assessing AAIs in emergency and ambulatory care settings on: (1) patient and family anxiety/distress or pain and (2) HCP stress. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were done in duplicate with conflicts adjudicated by a third party. Random-effects meta-analyses are reported as mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as appropriate. RESULTS: We included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 341 patients, 146 HCPs, 122 child caregivers), four before-after (83 patients), and one mixed-method study (124 patients). There was no effect across three RCTs measuring patient-reported anxiety/distress (n = 380; SMD = -0.36, 95% CI = -0.95 to 0.23, I2  = 81%), while two before-after studies suggested a benefit (n = 80; SMD = -1.95, 95% CI = -2.99 to -0.91, I2  = 72%). Four RCTs found no difference in measures of observed anxiety/distress (n = 166; SMD = -0.44, 95% CI = -1.01 to 0.13, I2  = 73%) while one before-after study reported a significant benefit (n = 60; SMD = -1.64, 95% CI = -2.23 to -1.05). Three RCTs found no difference in patient-reported pain (n = 202; MD = -0.90, 95% CI = -2.01 to 0.22, I2  = 68%). Two RCTs reported positive but nonsignificant effects on HCP stress. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available on the effectiveness of AAIs in emergency and ambulatory care settings. Rigorous studies using global experience-oriented (or patient-identified) outcome measures are required.

Procedural Skills Training in Emergency Medicine Physicians Within the Edmonton Zone: A Needs Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to describe the current procedural skill practices, attitudes toward procedural skill competency, and the role for educational skills training sessions among emergency medicine (EM) physicians within a geographic health zone. METHODS: This is a multicenter descriptive cross-sectional survey of all EM physicians working at 12 emergency departments (EDs) within the Edmonton Zone in 2019. Survey items addressed current procedural skill performance frequency; perceived importance and confidence; current methods to maintain competence; barriers and facilitating factors to participation in a curriculum; preferred teaching methods; and desired frequency of practice for each procedural skill. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 53.6%. Variability in frequency of performed procedures was seen across the type of hospital sites. For the majority of skills, there was a significantly positive correlation between the frequency at which a skill was performed and the perceived confidence performing said skill. There was inconsistency and no significant correlation with perceived importance, perceived confidence or frequency performing a given skill, and the desired frequency of training for that skill. Course availability (76.2%) and time (72.8%) are the most common identified barriers to participation in procedural skills training. CONCLUSIONS: This study summarized the current ED procedural skill practices among EM physicians in the Edmonton Zone and attitudes toward an educational curriculum for procedural skill competency. This represents a step toward targeted continuing professional development in staff physicians.