Survey data indicate that technical debriefing was better received than cognitive debriefing. The authors theorize that an understanding of CDRs can be facilitated through simulation training based on the analysis of interview comments.

Objectives: Carbon Monoxide (CO), the third most common cause of acute poisoning death, is easily overlooked in the emergency department (ED). Nonspecific complaints such as headache, weakness, or malaise may easily result in misdiagnosis. The objectives of this study are to determine the frequency of CO poisoning in patients presenting to the ED complaining of headaches and to determine the feasibility of using noninvasive CO analyzers as a screening tool.Methods: This prospective controlled study examined, during the winter months, adult patients presenting with a complaint of atraumatic, afebrile headaches. All subjects submitted a sample for a CO breath analyzer. Participants with elevated carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) levels (nonsmokers >2%, smokers >5%) underwent venous COHb testing. Control patients, without headaches, presenting to the ED were similarly studied.Results: We enrolled 170 subjects and 98 controls. Of the 170 subjects, 12 (7.1%) had elevated COHb levels confirmed by venous COHb levels. Of the 98 controls, 1 (1.0%) had an elevated COHb level (p<0.05). There were no differences in demographic factors between the two groups (p > 0.16).Conclusions: Noninvasive measurement of CO levels in ED patients with headaches is rapid and specific. During winter months, elevated CO levels are present in over 7% of ED patients with headaches.

No abstract

Background: Recent literature describes ''cognitive dispositions to respond'' (CDRs) that may lead physicians to err in their clinical reasoning.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: A set of symptom-based, all-hazards, decision-making algorithms was designed to aid the first-contact provider during early patient presentations after a terrorist incident.Objective: The primary objective was to assess the usability of these algorithms. A secondary objective was to assess the psychometric properties of the testing scenarios.Methods: This was a written, usability assessment of the algorithms employing a convenience sample of hospital-based, healthcare providers who had not taken any specific training in the use of the algorithms. A series of 26 paragraph-length, moderately difficult scenarios was created to reflect possible agents, means of attack, and types of patients. Each of the 26 scenarios requires that one make a triage choice on the “attack” algorithm (the trunk algorithm), then proceed to one of four other branch algorithms (dirty resuscitation, chemical agents, biological agents, bomb/blast/radiation dispersal device) to make a final triage choice. Conditional scores based on getting both the attack and final card correct were calculated for each algorithm.Results: Nineteen attending physicians, 50 emergency medicine residents, and 41 nurses took the assessment. The total score was 45% correct for all participants. The score on the attack algorithm was 66% correct. Dirty resuscitation, biological, chemical, and bomb/blast scores were 46%, 54%, 46%, and 51% respectively. The probability of guessing the correct answer on the attack algorithm was 1/7 or 14%. The conditional probability of guessing both the attack algorithm and the final card correct ranged from 4.7% for the biological, chemical, and bomb/blast algorithms to 2.4% for the dirty resuscitation algorithm. Item discrimination, item difficulty, and Cronbach's alpha were acceptable for the overall test. Certain individual items had item difficulty levels suggesting they were too difficult and should be replaced in future versions of the test.Conclusions: Performance on the test suggests that participants did substantially better than would have been expected by chance alone. Future efforts will revise the algorithms with the goal of simplification. Revision of the testing instrument and testing algorithm use after instruction also are needed.