Objectives The Emergency Medicine (EM) Specialty Committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) specifies that resuscitation entrustable professional activities (EPAs) can be assessed in the workplace and simulated environments. However, limited validity evidence for these assessments in either setting exists. We sought to determine if EPA ratings improve over time and whether an association exists between ratings in the workplace v. simulation environment. Methods All Foundations EPA1 (F1) assessments were collected for first-year residents (n = 9) in our program during the 2018–2019 academic year. This EPA focuses on initiating and assisting in the resuscitation of critically ill patients. EPA ratings obtained in the workplace and simulation environments were compared using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). To determine whether ratings in the two environments differed as residents progressed through training, a within-subjects analysis of variance was conducted with training environment and month as independent variables. Results We collected 104 workplace and 36 simulation assessments. No correlation was observed between mean EPA ratings in the two environments (CCC(8) = -0.01; p = 0.93). Ratings in both settings improved significantly over time (F(2,16) = 18.8; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.70), from 2.9 ± 1.2 in months 1–4 to 3.5 ± 0.2 in months 9–12. Workplace ratings (3.4 ± 0.1) were consistently higher than simulation ratings (2.9 ± 0.2) (F(2,16) = 7.2; p = 0.028; η2 = 0.47). Conclusions No correlation was observed between EPA F1 ratings in the workplace v. simulation environments. Further studies are needed to clarify the conflicting results of our study with others and build an evidence base for the validity of EPA assessments in simulated and workplace environments.
Objectives Many patients discharged home from the emergency department (ED) require urgent outpatient consultation with a specialty service. We sought to identify the best- and worst-performing services with regard to time to outpatient consultation, the proportion of patients lost to follow-up, the rate of related return ED visits prior to consultation, and common strategies used by our top-performing clinics. Methods We conducted a health records review of The Ottawa Hospital ED visits during four 1-week periods. All consecutive adult outpatient consultation requests were included for chart review and were followed up to 12 months. Outcome measures included demographics, referral attendance rates, incomplete referrals, return ED visits, and time intervals. Services with at least 15 consultation requests were included for data analysis and qualitative mapping of their referral processes. Results Of the 963 patients who met inclusion criteria, 803 (83.4%) attended their appointment, while 160 (16.6%) were lost to follow-up. The overall median time to successful consultation was 9 days (IQR = 2–27). 92 (9.6%) patients returned to the ED with a related complaint. The top-performing clinics included ophthalmology, orthopedics, and thrombosis (median = 1, 8, 1 days; incomplete consultation = 3%, 4%, 6%; return ED visits = 0%, 6%, 2% respectively). The bottom-performing clinics included otorhinolaryngology, neurology, and gynecology (median = 47, 39, 27 days; incomplete consultation = 50%, 41%, 37%; return ED visits = 11%, 15%, 26%, respectively). Processes incorporated by top-performing clinics included reserving appointment slots for emergency referrals, structured referral forms, and centralized booking. Conclusions We found a substantial variability in both the waiting times and reliability of outpatient referrals from the ED. Top-performing clinics incorporate common referral processes.
Introduction: The Emergency Medicine Specialty Committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) has specified that resuscitation Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) can be assessed in either the workplace or simulation environments; however, there is minimal evidence that such clinical performance correlates. We sought to determine the relationship between assessments in the workplace versus simulation environments among junior emergency medicine residents. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study to compare workplace and simulation resuscitation performance among all first-year residents (n = 9) enrolled in the RCPSC-Emergency Medicine program at the University of Ottawa. All scores from Foundations EPA #1 (F1) were collected during the 2018-2019 academic year; this EPA focuses on initiating and assisting in the resuscitation of critically ill patients. Workplace performance was assessed by clinical supervisors by direct observation during clinical shifts. Simulation performance was assessed by trained simulation educators during regularly-scheduled sessions. We present descriptive statistics and within-subjects analyses of variance. Results: We collected a total of 104 workplace and 36 simulation assessments. Interobserver reliability of simulation assessments was high (ICC = 0.863). We observed no correlation between mean EPA scores assigned in the workplace and simulation environments (Spearman's rho=−0.092, p = 0.813). Scores in both environments improved significantly over time (F(1,8) = 18.79, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.70), from 2.9(SD = 1.2) in months 1-4 to 3.5(0.2) in months 9-12 (p = 0.002). Workplace scores (3.4(0.1)) were consistently higher than simulation scores (2.9(0.2)) (F(1,8) = 7.16, p = 0.028, ηp2 = 0.47). Conclusion: We observed no correlation between EPA F1 ratings of resuscitation performance between the workplace and simulation environments. Further studies should seek to clarify this relationship to inform our ongoing use of simulation to assess clinical competence.
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.