INTRODUCTIONMetacognition is a cognitive debiasing strategy that clinicians can use to deliberately detach themselves from the immediate context of a clinical decision, which allows them to refl ect upon the thinking process. However, cognitive debiasing strategies are often most needed when the clinician cannot afford the time to use them. A mnemonic checklist known as TWED (T = threat, W = what else, E = evidence and D = dispositional factors) was recently created to facilitate metacognition. This study explores the hypothesis that the TWED checklist improves the ability of medical students to make better clinical decisions.METHODS Two groups of fi nal-year medical students from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, were recruited to participate in this quasi-experimental study. The intervention group (n = 21) received educational intervention that introduced the TWED checklist, while the control group (n = 19) received a tutorial on basic electrocardiography. Post-intervention, both groups received a similar assessment on clinical decision-making based on fi ve case scenarios. RESULTSThe mean score of the intervention group was signifi cantly higher than that of the control group (18.50 ± 4.45 marks vs. 12.50 ± 2.84 marks, p < 0.001). In three of the fi ve case scenarios, students in the intervention group obtained higher scores than those in the control group. CONCLUSIONThe results of this study support the use of the TWED checklist to facilitate metacognition in clinical decision-making.
BackgroundThe usual method for initial assessment of an acute asthma attack in the emergency room includes the use of peak flow measurement and clinical parameters. Both methods have their own disadvantages such as poor cooperation/effort from patients (peak flow meter) and lack of objective assessment (clinical parameters). We were looking into other methods for the initial asthma assessment, namely the use of capnography. The normal capnogram has an almost square wave pattern comprising phase 1, slope phase 2, plateau phase 3, phase 4 and angle α (between slopes 2 and 3). The changes in asthma include decrease in slope of phase 2, increase in slope 3 and opening of angle α.AimsOur objective was to compare and assess the correlation between the changes in capnographic indices and peak flow measurement in non-intubated acute asthmatic patients attending the emergency room.MethodsWe carried out a prospective study in a university hospital emergency department (ED). One hundred and twenty eight patients with acute asthma were monitored with peak flow measurements and then had a nasal cannula attached for microstream sampling of expired carbon dioxide. The capnographic waveform was recorded onto a PC card for indices analysis. The patients were treated according to departmental protocols. After treatment, when they were adjudged well for discharge, a second set of results was obtained for peak flow measurements and capnographic waveform recording. The pre-treatment and post-treatment results were then compared with paired samples t-test analysis. Simple and canonical correlations were performed to determine correlations between the assessment methods. A p value of below 0.05 was taken to be significant.ResultsPeak flow measurements showed significant improvements post-treatment (p < 0.001). On the capnographic waveform, there was a significant difference in the slope of phase 3 (p < 0.001) and alpha angle (p < 0.001), but not in phase 2 slope (p = 0.35). Correlation studies done between the assessment methods and indices readings did not show strong correlations either between the measurements or the magnitude of change pre-treatment and post-treatment.ConclusionPeak flow measurements and capnographic waveform indices can indicate improvements in airway diameter in acute asthmatics in the ED. Even though the two assessment methods did not correlate statistically, capnographic waveform analysis presents several advantages in that it is effort independent and provides continuous monitoring of normal tidal respiration. They can be proposed for the monitoring of asthmatics in the ED.
BackgroundConcerns over high transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 have led to innovation and usage of an aerosol box to protect healthcare workers during airway intubation in patients with COVID-19. Its efficacy as a barrier protection in addition to the use of a standard personal protective equipment (PPE) is not fully known. We performed a simulated study to investigate the relationship between aerosol box usage during intubation and contaminations on healthcare workers pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE.MethodsThis was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants’ feedback.ResultsThirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box.ConclusionsAn aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator’s mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.
BackgroundWhile emergency airway management training is conventionally conducted via face-to-face learning (F2FL) workshops, there are inherent cost, time, place and manpower limitations in running such workshops. Blended learning (BL) refers to the systematic integration of online and face-to-face learning aimed to facilitate complex thinking skills and flexible participation at a reduced financial, time and manpower cost. This study was conducted to evaluate its effectiveness in emergency airway management training.MethodsA single-center prospective randomised controlled trial involving 30 doctors from Sarawak General Hospital, Malaysia was conducted from September 2016 to February 2017 to compare the effectiveness of BL versus F2FL for emergency airway management training. Participants in the BL arm were given a period of 12 days to go through the online materials in a learning management system while those in the F2FL arm attended a-day of face-to-face lectures (8 h). Participants from both arms then attended a day of hands-on session consisting of simulation skills training with airway manikins. Pre- and post-tests in knowledge and practical skills were administered. E-learning experience and the perception towards BL among participants in the BL arm were also assessed.ResultsSignificant improvements in post-test scores as compared to pre-test scores were noted for participants in both BL and F2FL arms for knowledge, practical, and total scores. The degree of increment between the BL group and the F2FL arms for all categories were not significantly different (total scores: 35 marks, inter-quartile range (IQR) 15.0 – 41.0 vs. 31 marks, IQR 24.0 – 41.0, p = 0.690; theory scores: 18 marks, IQR 9 – 24 vs. 19 marks, IQR 15 – 20, p = 0.992; practical scores: 11 marks, IQR 5 -18 vs. 10 marks, IQR 9 – 20, p = 0.461 respectively). The overall perception towards BL was positive.ConclusionsBlended learning is as effective as face-to-face learning for emergency airway management training of junior doctors, suggesting that blended learning may be a feasible alternative to face-to-face learning for such skill training in emergency departments.Trial registrationMalaysian National Medical Research NMRR-16-696-30190. Registered 28 April 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12873-018-0152-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundAlthough the majority of the snakebite cases in Malaysia are due to non-venomous snakes, venomous bites cause significant morbidity and mortality if treatment measures, especially ant-venom therapy, are delayed.MethodsTo determine the demographic characteristics, we conducted a retrospective study on all snakebite patients admitted to the Emergency Department of Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM) from January 2006 to December 2010.ResultsIn the majority of the 260 cases that we found (138 cases or 52.9%), the snake species was unidentified. The most common venomous snakebites among the identified species were caused by cobras (52 cases or 20%). Cobra bites are significantly more likely to result in severe envenomation compared to non-cobra bites. Post hoc analysis also showed that cobra bite patients are significantly less likely to have complete recovery than non-cobra bite patients (48 cases, 75.0% vs. 53 cases, 94.6%; p = 0.003) and more likely to result in local gangrene (11 cases, 17.2% vs. 3 cases, 5.4%; p = 0.044).ConclusionCobra bites are significantly more likely to result in severe envenomation needing anti-venom administration and more likely to result in local gangrene, and the patients are significantly less likely to have complete recovery than those with non-cobra bites.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.