Cargando…
Spotting Sepsis: Blended Learning to Assess Student Recognition and Management
BACKGROUND: Program directors have expressed concern that some medical school graduates are unprepared for residency. Trainees should be able to perform the AAMC’s Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) without supervision on day 1. We describe an innovative approach for evaluating performance i...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5630986/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1134 |
_version_ | 1783269341644455936 |
---|---|
author | Nematollahi, Saman Gordon, Rachel |
author_facet | Nematollahi, Saman Gordon, Rachel |
author_sort | Nematollahi, Saman |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Program directors have expressed concern that some medical school graduates are unprepared for residency. Trainees should be able to perform the AAMC’s Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) without supervision on day 1. We describe an innovative approach for evaluating performance in EPA 4 (orders and prescriptions) within a flipped, blended “Ready 4 Residency” (R4R) course. We assessed fourth year medical students’ recognition and management of sepsis in an online case. METHODS: Students took R4R in March or April of 2017. R4R included two sepsis workshops and a simulation involving a septic patient. In the online component a patient presented with sepsis from soft-tissue infection. After receiving history and exam findings, 141 students submitted order sets. In March, 35% of students engaged in the training before the order set due date, while all April students engaged in these activities beforehand. Orders were assessed for entrustment using a rubric guided by the AAMC’s description of EPA 4. Each criterion (4.1–4.4) was scored as “not entrustable”, “developing entrustment”, or “entrustable”, and given an overall rating. We recorded which components of the sepsis bundle were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the de-identified data. Data analysis included the t-test, significant at α=0.05. RESULTS: Overall, 50% of students recognized sepsis (42% in March vs. 57% in April), 74% ordered blood cultures (74% vs. 75%), 62% ordered a lactate (58% vs. 66%), 60% ordered appropriate antibiotics (63% vs. 57%), and 40% ordered adequate fluid resuscitation (30% vs. 50%, P = 0.02). Entrustment was different by month (March vs. April) but was not significant: 70% vs. 54% were not entrustable, 18% vs. 28% were developing entrustment, 12% vs. 18% were entrustable. CONCLUSION: A flipped, blended residency preparedness course is an innovative approach to assessing entrustment prior to residency. Virtual online patients can help educators identify knowledge gaps in recognizing and managing emergent conditions (i.e., sepsis). Students had difficulties with sepsis recognition and management, particularly with fluid resuscitation and antibiotic choice. We will bolster the curriculum to develop students’ abilities to detect and manage sepsis to improve patient safety and outcomes. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5630986 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56309862017-11-07 Spotting Sepsis: Blended Learning to Assess Student Recognition and Management Nematollahi, Saman Gordon, Rachel Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Program directors have expressed concern that some medical school graduates are unprepared for residency. Trainees should be able to perform the AAMC’s Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) without supervision on day 1. We describe an innovative approach for evaluating performance in EPA 4 (orders and prescriptions) within a flipped, blended “Ready 4 Residency” (R4R) course. We assessed fourth year medical students’ recognition and management of sepsis in an online case. METHODS: Students took R4R in March or April of 2017. R4R included two sepsis workshops and a simulation involving a septic patient. In the online component a patient presented with sepsis from soft-tissue infection. After receiving history and exam findings, 141 students submitted order sets. In March, 35% of students engaged in the training before the order set due date, while all April students engaged in these activities beforehand. Orders were assessed for entrustment using a rubric guided by the AAMC’s description of EPA 4. Each criterion (4.1–4.4) was scored as “not entrustable”, “developing entrustment”, or “entrustable”, and given an overall rating. We recorded which components of the sepsis bundle were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the de-identified data. Data analysis included the t-test, significant at α=0.05. RESULTS: Overall, 50% of students recognized sepsis (42% in March vs. 57% in April), 74% ordered blood cultures (74% vs. 75%), 62% ordered a lactate (58% vs. 66%), 60% ordered appropriate antibiotics (63% vs. 57%), and 40% ordered adequate fluid resuscitation (30% vs. 50%, P = 0.02). Entrustment was different by month (March vs. April) but was not significant: 70% vs. 54% were not entrustable, 18% vs. 28% were developing entrustment, 12% vs. 18% were entrustable. CONCLUSION: A flipped, blended residency preparedness course is an innovative approach to assessing entrustment prior to residency. Virtual online patients can help educators identify knowledge gaps in recognizing and managing emergent conditions (i.e., sepsis). Students had difficulties with sepsis recognition and management, particularly with fluid resuscitation and antibiotic choice. We will bolster the curriculum to develop students’ abilities to detect and manage sepsis to improve patient safety and outcomes. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2017-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5630986/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1134 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Abstracts Nematollahi, Saman Gordon, Rachel Spotting Sepsis: Blended Learning to Assess Student Recognition and Management |
title | Spotting Sepsis: Blended Learning to Assess Student Recognition and Management |
title_full | Spotting Sepsis: Blended Learning to Assess Student Recognition and Management |
title_fullStr | Spotting Sepsis: Blended Learning to Assess Student Recognition and Management |
title_full_unstemmed | Spotting Sepsis: Blended Learning to Assess Student Recognition and Management |
title_short | Spotting Sepsis: Blended Learning to Assess Student Recognition and Management |
title_sort | spotting sepsis: blended learning to assess student recognition and management |
topic | Abstracts |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5630986/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1134 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nematollahisaman spottingsepsisblendedlearningtoassessstudentrecognitionandmanagement AT gordonrachel spottingsepsisblendedlearningtoassessstudentrecognitionandmanagement |