Cargando…

Comparison of Two Simulated Procedural Assessment Formats in Attending Emergency Physicians

Background Emergency physicians must be proficient at inserting central venous catheters and performing lumbar punctures to provide life-saving therapies to critically ill patients. An assessment of procedural skill is rarely performed after an emergency physician has completed residency. Current bo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hock, Sara M, Shah, Shital C, Perumalsamy, Priya D, Sergel, Michelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34123640
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.14943
Descripción
Sumario:Background Emergency physicians must be proficient at inserting central venous catheters and performing lumbar punctures to provide life-saving therapies to critically ill patients. An assessment of procedural skill is rarely performed after an emergency physician has completed residency. Current board certification exams for emergency medicine focus only on verbal descriptions of procedures to assess skill. We compared two methods of procedural skill assessment, simulated task trainer and verbal description, to assess the range of skill in central venous catheter insertion and lumbar punctures of emergency attending physicians at a large, urban, academic tertiary care institution. Methodology This is a prospective cohort study of simulated internal jugular central venous catheter insertion and lumbar puncture skill by emergency attending physicians on a task trainer versus verbal description. A total of 17 attending emergency medicine physicians consented to participate in the study during a yearly procedural skills session. For each subject, two expert raters used previously published checklists to assess procedural skill and give a global rating score. Results More checklist items were performed correctly on the task trainer than on verbal assessment for central line (task trainer = 78.4% ± 8.32% and verbal = 68.26% ± 8.9%) and lumbar puncture (task trainer = 85.57% ± 7.6% and verbal = 73.53%4 ± 10.34%) procedures, both with significant differences (p < 0.001). Of the participants, 82% strongly preferred the task trainer format to the verbal description assessment format. Conclusions The higher scores on the simulated format compared to the current verbal format imply that a shift towards simulated procedural assessment techniques may benefit examinees. More work is needed to determine if objective checklist scores for practicing attending emergency physicians correlate with subjective expert assessments of their procedural skills.