Introduction Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of using telesimulation to deliver an emergency medical services (EMS) course on mass casualty incident (MCI) training to healthcare providers overseas. Methods We conducted a feasibility study to establish the process for successful delivery of educational content to learners overseas via telesimulation over a five-month period. Participants were registrants in an EMS course on MCI triage broadcast from University of California, Irvine Medical Simulation Center. The intervention was a Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) course. The primary outcome was successful implementation of the course via telesimulation. The secondary outcome was an assessment of participant thoughts, feelings, and attitudes via a qualitative survey. We also sought to obtain quantitative data that would allow for the assessment of triage accuracy. Descriptive statistics were used to express the percentage of participants with favorable responses to survey questions. Results All 32 participants enrolled in the course provided a favorable response to all questions on the survey regarding their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes toward learning via telesimulation with wearable/mobile technology. Key barriers and challenges identified included dependability of Internet connection, choosing appropriate software platforms to deliver content, and intercontinental time difference considerations. The protocol detailed in this study demonstrated the successful implementation and feasibility of providing education and training to learners at an off-site location. Conclusion In this feasibility study, we were able to demonstrate the successful implementation of an intercontinental MCI triage course using telesimulation and wearable/mobile technology. Healthcare providers expressed a positive favorability toward learning MCI triage via telesimulation. We were also able to establish a process to obtain quantitative data that would allow for the calculation of triage accuracy for further experimental study designs.
IntroductionMost medical schools teach cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during the final year in course curriculum to prepare students to manage the first minutes of clinical emergencies. Little is known regarding the optimal method of instruction for this critical skill. Simulation has been shown in similar settings to enhance performance and knowledge. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation training vs. standard manikin training for teaching medical students the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for high-quality CPR.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm study of 70 fourth-year medical students to either simulation (SIM) or standard training (STD) over an eight-month period. SIM group learned the AHA guidelines for high-quality CPR via an hour session that included a PowerPoint lecture with training on a high-fidelity simulator. STD group learned identical content using a low-fidelity Resusci Anne® CPR manikin. All students managed a simulated cardiac arrest scenario with primary outcome based on the AHA guidelines definition of high-quality CPR (specifies metrics for compression rate, depth, recoil, and compression fraction). Secondary outcome was time to emergency medical services (EMS) activation. We analyzed data via Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. Outcomes were performed on a simulated cardiac arrest case adapted from the AHA Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) SimMan® Scenario manual.ResultsStudents in the SIM group performed CPR that more closely adhered to the AHA guidelines of compression depth and compression fraction. Mean compression depth was 4.57 centimeters (cm) (95% confidence interval [CI] [4.30–4.82]) for SIM and 3.89 cm (95% CI [3.50–4.27]) for STD, p=0.02. Mean compression fraction was 0.724 (95% CI [0.699–0.751]) for SIM group and 0.679 (95% CI [0.655–0.702]) for STD, p=0.01. There was no difference for compression rate or recoil between groups. Time to EMS activation was 24.7 seconds (s) (95% CI [15.7–40.8]) for SIM group and 79.5 s (95% CI [44.8–119.6]) for STD group, p=0.007.ConclusionHigh-fidelity simulation training is superior to low-fidelity CPR manikin training for teaching fourth-year medical students implementation of high-quality CPR for chest compression depth and compression fraction.
Twitter: @MarkLangdorf.Study objective: Chest computed tomography (CT) diagnoses more injuries than chest radiography, so-called occult injuries. Wide availability of chest CT has driven substantial increase in emergency department use, although the incidence and clinical significance of chest CT findings have not been fully described. We determine the frequency, severity, and clinical import of occult injury, as determined by changes in management. These data will better inform clinical decisions, need for chest CT, and odds of intervention.Methods: Our sample included prospective data (2009 to 2013) on 5,912 patients at 10 Level I trauma center EDs with both chest radiography and chest CT at physician discretion. These patients were 40.6% of 14,553 enrolled in the parent study who had either chest radiography or chest CT. Occult injuries were pneumothorax, hemothorax, sternal or greater than 2 rib fractures, pulmonary contusion, thoracic spine or scapula fracture, and diaphragm or great vessel injury found on chest CT but not on preceding chest radiography. A priori, we categorized thoracic injuries as major (having invasive procedures), minor (observation or inpatient pain control >24 hours), or of no clinical significance. Primary outcome was prevalence and proportion of occult injury with major interventions of chest tube, mechanical ventilation, or surgery. Secondary outcome was minor interventions of admission rate or observation hours because of occult injury.Results: Two thousand forty-eight patients (34.6%) had chest injury on chest radiography or chest CT, whereas 1,454 of these patients (71.0%, 24.6% of all patients) had occult injury. Of these, in 954 patients (46.6% of injured, 16.1% of total), chest CT found injuries not observed on immediately preceding chest radiography. In 500 more patients (24.4% of injured patients, 8.5% of all patients), chest radiography found some injury, but chest CT found occult injury. Chest radiography found all injuries in only 29.0% of injured patients. Two hundred and two patients with occult injury (of 1,454, 13.9%) had major interventions, 343 of 1,454 (23.6%) had minor interventions, and 909 (62.5%) had no intervention. Patients with occult injury included 514 with pulmonary contusions (of 682 total, 75.4% occult), 405 with pneumothorax (of 597 total, 67.8% occult), 184 with hemothorax (of 230 total, 80.0% occult), those with greater than 2 rib fractures (n¼672/1,120, 60.0% occult) or sternal fracture (n¼269/281, 95.7% occult), 12 with great vessel injury (of 18 total, 66.7% occult), 5 with diaphragm injury (of 6, 83.3% occult), and 537 with multiple occult injuries. Interventions for patients with occult injury included mechanical ventilation for 31 of 514 patients with pulmonary contusion (6.0%), chest tube for 118 of 405 patients with pneumothorax (29.1%), and 75 of 184 patients with hemothorax (40.8%). Inpatient pain control or observation greater than 24 hours was conducted for 183 of 672 patients with rib fractures (27.2%) and 79 of 269 with sternal fractur...
BackgroundUnnecessary diagnostic imaging leads to higher costs, longer emergency department stays, and increased patient exposure to ionizing radiation. We sought to prospectively derive and validate two decision instruments (DIs) for selective chest computed tomography (CT) in adult blunt trauma patients.Methods and FindingsFrom September 2011 to May 2014, we prospectively enrolled blunt trauma patients over 14 y of age presenting to eight US, urban level 1 trauma centers in this observational study. During the derivation phase, physicians recorded the presence or absence of 14 clinical criteria before viewing chest imaging results. We determined injury outcomes by CT radiology readings and categorized injuries as major or minor according to an expert-panel-derived clinical classification scheme. We then employed recursive partitioning to derive two DIs: Chest CT-All maximized sensitivity for all injuries, and Chest CT-Major maximized sensitivity for only major thoracic injuries (while increasing specificity). In the validation phase, we employed similar methodology to prospectively test the performance of both DIs.We enrolled 11,477 patients—6,002 patients in the derivation phase and 5,475 patients in the validation phase. The derived Chest CT-All DI consisted of (1) abnormal chest X-ray, (2) rapid deceleration mechanism, (3) distracting injury, (4) chest wall tenderness, (5) sternal tenderness, (6) thoracic spine tenderness, and (7) scapular tenderness. The Chest CT-Major DI had the same criteria without rapid deceleration mechanism. In the validation phase, Chest CT-All had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%–100%), a specificity of 20.8% (95% CI 19.2%–22.4%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (95% CI 98.9%–100%) for major injury, and a sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 93.6%–96.9%), a specificity of 25.5% (95% CI 23.5%–27.5%), and a NPV of 93.9% (95% CI 91.5%–95.8%) for either major or minor injury. Chest CT-Major had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%–100%), a specificity of 31.7% (95% CI 29.9%–33.5%), and a NPV of 99.9% (95% CI 99.3%–100%) for major injury and a sensitivity of 90.7% (95% CI 88.3%–92.8%), a specificity of 37.9% (95% CI 35.8%–40.1%), and a NPV of 91.8% (95% CI 89.7%–93.6%) for either major or minor injury. Regarding the limitations of our work, some clinicians may disagree with our injury classification and sensitivity thresholds for injury detection.ConclusionsWe prospectively derived and validated two DIs (Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major) that identify blunt trauma patients with clinically significant thoracic injuries with high sensitivity, allowing for a safe reduction of approximately 25%–37% of unnecessary chest CTs. Trauma evaluation protocols that incorporate these DIs may decrease unnecessary costs and radiation exposure in the disproportionately young trauma population.
No abstract
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.