Quality improvement (QI) as a clinical improvement science has been criticized for failing to deliver broad patient outcome improvement and for being a top-down regulatory and compliance construct. These critics have argued that the focus of QI should be on increasing adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and, as a result, should be consolidated into research structures with the science of evidence-based medicine (EBM) at the helm. We argue that EBM often overestimates the role of knowledge as the root cause of quality problems and focuses almost exclusively on the effectiveness of care while often neglecting the domains of safety, efficiency, patient-centredness, and equity. Successfully addressing quality problems requires a much broader, systems-based view of health-care delivery. Although essential to clinical decision-making and practice, EBM cannot act as the cornerstone of health system improvement.

Purpose This article aims to identify the factors that affect physicians' experiences of receiving practice data and to use these data to develop a model describing how individuals interact with the data. Methods We designed an interview guide to study physicians' perspectives on audit and feedback. By intentional sampling, we recruited 15 physicians amongst gender groups, types of practice (academic vs community), and durations of practice. The interviews were conducted by a single author and transcribed without identifiers. We then began with an open coding analysis for all of the transcripts, and thereafter conducted axial coding to group the data into larger themes. Results Several attributes were identified as either enabling or counterproductive attributes for participant improvement. The final proposed model identifies different zones of engagement on the basis of both the individual practitioner's growth mindset and the quality of the existing data system. In the highest engagement zone, the mindset of the collective leadership is one of growth. Systemic supports are in place, which potentiates learning that may come from an individual motivated to use their own data. Conclusion Our novel model depicts the relationship between data feedback systems and individuals' mindsets interact to augment or hinder clinical practice improvement. This model may provide leaders with a framework to examine their academic and administrative structures and how they might interface with performance feedback systems with clinicians.

International graduate medical accreditation bodies are placing increasing emphasis on resident education and competency in the principles of quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS). Current QIPS educational curricula are heterogeneous and variably attain stated objectives. We have conducted a review of QIPS curricular best practices and barriers to implementation of successful QIPS curricula and provide clear solutions aimed at overcoming these barriers. Emergency medicine programs provide fertile ground for QIPS initiatives and can become world leaders in QIPS curricular development and education.

vidence and guidelines have indicated that an undetectable or low concentration of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) at emergency department (ED) presentation may be a suitable criterion in certain patients for ruling out myocardial infarction (MI) and possibly discharging patients home. [1][2][3][4] The basis for this is the high clinical sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) that can be attained when an hs-cTn cut-off close to 5 ng/L is used. 2,3,5,6 However, the usefulness of an undetectable or low hs-cTn concentration in ruling out MI does not necessarily mean that it can also be used to predict whether a patient is at low risk for a subsequent cardiovascular event.An international survey of ED physicians indicated that an acceptable miss rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 30 days would be 1% or less. 7 Accordingly, the sensitivity required for MACE at 30 days should be at least 99% to achieve this threshold and to allow discharge and cessation of Using the clinical chemistry score in the emergency department to detect adverse cardiac events: a diagnostic accuracy study

Background For patients investigated for suspected acute coronary syndrome, there is uncertainty if a single measurement of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) at emergency department (ED) presentation can identify patients at both low and high risk for mortality. Methods We included consecutive adult patients in the ED who had a Clinical Chemistry Score (CCS) taken at presentation (ie, combination of glucose, creatinine for estimated glomerular filtration rate determination, and hs-cTnI assay) in a Canadian city between 2012 and 2013. Outcomes were 3-month, 1-year, and 5-year all-cause mortality using the provincial death registry. Mortality rates and test performance (eg, sensitivity and specificity) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained for the CCS or hs-cTnI assay alone using established cutoffs for these tests. Results Our cohort included 5974 patients with a 1-year mortality rate of 17.2% (95% CI, 16.2-18.3). A CCS ≥ 1 yielded a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI, 98.4-99.6) compared with the hs-cTnI ≥ 5 ng/L cutoff sensitivity of 88.4% (95% CI, 86.3-90.3), with the mortality rate being significantly lower for patients with CCS < 1 (2.0%; 95% CI, 0.9-4.0) vs patients with hs-cTnI < 5 ng/L (5.0%; 95% CI, 4.2-6.0) at 1 year ( P = 0.01). A CCS of 5 also yielded a higher specificity (88.5%; 95% CI, 87.5-89.3) compared with hs-cTnI > 26 ng/L (83.9%; 95% CI, 82.9-84.9), with no difference in mortality rates (37.4% vs 36.3%; P = 0.66). This trend was consistent at 3-month and 5-year mortality. Conclusion For patients in the ED with a potential cardiac issue, using the CCS cutoffs can better identify patients at low and high risk for mortality than using published cutoffs for hs-cTnI alone.

No abstract

Background: Graduate medical education (GME) bodies are beginning to mandate coaching as an integral part of the learning process, in addition to current requirements for mentorship. Once an emergency medicine physician transitions beyond graduate training, there is no requirement and little focus on coaching as a method of improving or maintaining clinical practice. Our objective was to understand and describe the current state of the published literature with regard to the use of coaching and mentorship for both GME and practicing physicians. Methods:We conducted a structured review of the literature through PubMed and Google Scholar and included all articles applying coaching or mentorship modalities to GME trainees or practicing physicians. A Google Form was used for standardized data abstraction. Data were collected pertaining to the settings of intervention, the nature of the intervention, its effect, and its resource requirements.Results: A total of 3,546 papers were isolated during the literature review. After exclusion, 186 underwent fulltext review by the authors of which 126 articles were included in the final data analysis. Eighty-two articles (65%) pertained to mentorship and 14 (11%) to coaching; the remainder of the articles discussed a combination or variation of these two concepts. Fifty-three (42%) articles were descriptive studies and 35 (28%) were narrative reviews or commentaries. Forty-seven (37%) articles originated from within surgical specialties and coaching was most commonly applied to procedural or manual skills with 22 (17%) instances among all studies.Conclusions: Most literature on coaching and mentorship is descriptive or narrative, and few papers are in the specialty of emergency medicine. Most interventions are limited to single instances of coaching or mentorship without longitudinal application of the intervention. There is an important need to study and publish further evidence on coaching interventions.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) testing has enabled physicians to make earlier diagnostic and prognostic decisions in the hospital setting than previous cardiac troponin assays. Analytical improvements have permitted one to measure cardiac troponin precisely in the nanogram per litre (ng/L) range with hs-cTn assays which has resulted in fast 0/1-h and 0/2-h algorithms for ruling-in and ruling-out myocardial infarction. Although analytical interferences that affect the reporting of hs-cTn are uncommon, not all hs-cTn assays are designed the same nor have undergone the same clinical and analytical validations. Here, after investigating an initial case of discrepant hs-cTnI results, we report that patients with an acute phase response (e.g., patients with inflammatory or infectious illnesses) can yield high and non-reproducible results with the Ortho Clinical Diagnostics hs-cTnI assay. Compared to Abbott Diagnostics hs-cTnI, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics hs-cTnI assay misclassifies biochemical injury in approximately 10% of the population being assessed for myocardial injury with imprecise results in approximately half of this population (i.e., 5%). In conclusion, caution is warranted in interpreting Ortho Clinical Diagnostics hs-cTnI alone in patients being evaluated for myocardial injury, especially in patients whose primary presentation is related to an acute phase response and not an acute coronary syndrome symptom.