The utilization of quality assurance methods in emergency medical services

Objective: The concept of the necessity of a good quality assurance (QA) plan for emergency medical services (EMS) is well-accepted; guidelines as how best to achieve this and how current systems operate have have not been defined. The purpose of this study was to survey EMS systems to discover current methods used to perform medical control and QA and to examine whether the existence of an emergency medicine residency affected these components. Methods: A survey was mailed in 1989 to the major teaching hospitals associated with all of the emergency medicine residency programs (n = 79) and all other hospitals with greater than 350 beds within the 50 largest United States metropolitan areas (n = 172). If no response was received, a second request was sent in 1990. The survey consisted of questions concerning four general EMS-QA categories: 1) general information; 2) prospective; 3) immediate; and 4) retrospective medical control. Results: Completed surveys were received from 78.5% of residency and 50% of non-residency programs. The majority had an emergency medicine physician as medical director (80.1% vs 61.5%, p = .03). While both residency and non-residency hospitals participated in initial public and prehospital personnel education, academic programs were more likely to be involved in continuing medical education (98.2% vs 82.3%, p = .009). On-line (direct) supervision was more likely to be provided by residency institutions (96.4% vs 81.0%, p = .017) which was provided by a physician in 88.3%.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Resident Service Hours in Emergency Medicine

Objective: The number of hours worked by residents in all specialties has become a controversial issue. Residents often are expected to competently conduct patient care activities and to take educational advantage of clinical experiences in spite of frequent fatigue and sleep deprivation. This survey of residency directors was designed to assess the scheduled clinical time for emergency medicine (EM) residents. Methods: A 13-question survey dealing with time commitments of EM residents was sent to the residency directors of all accredited EM residency programs in the United States in the fall of 1991. Residency directors were asked to indicate the number of shifts, hours, and days off per week; and the number of night shifts and weekend days off per month for each postgraduate year of residency training (PGY1-PGY4). Directors also were asked whether shifts were scheduled randomly or predictably with progression from days to nights with time off after nights. Results: Seventy of 71 (98.6% response rate) residency directors responded. Residents were scheduled for an average of 49.1 hours per week. Scheduled hours decreased from an average of 51.9 at the PGY1 level to an average of 44.5 at the PGY4 level. A similar progression with year of training was noted for scheduled night shifts/ month, days off/week, and weekend days off/month. A PGY1 trainee averaged 7.0 night shifts/month, 1.9 days off/week, and 3.0 weekend days off/month; while a PGY4 trainee averaged 5.3, 2.4, and 3.2, respectively. Only 40% of the directors reported predictable scheduling progressing from days to nights. Conclusion: Emergency medicine resident schedules, as reported by residency directors, fall well within current specialty-specific requirements and compare favorably with the reported numbers for other specialties. However, because large ranges in scheduling parameters were reported, the data may be of value to residency directors, residents, and prospective residents. Most programs did not report a predictable schedule progression of shifts.     

The Status of Bedside Ultrasonography Training in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs

Bedside ultrasonography (BU) is rapidly being incorporated into emergency medicine (EM) training programs and clinical practice. In the past decade, several organizations in EM have issued position statements on the use of this technology. Program training content is currently driven by the recently published "Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine," which includes BU as a necessary skill. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine the current status of BU training in EM residency programs. METHODS: A survey was mailed in early 2001 to all 122 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited EM residency programs. The survey instrument asked whether BU was currently being taught, how much didactic and hands-on training time was incorporated into the curriculum, and what specialty representation was present in the faculty instructors. In addition, questions concerning the type of tests performed, the number considered necessary for competency, the role of BU in clinical decision making, and the type of quality assurance program were included in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 96 out of 122 surveys were completed (response rate of 79%). Ninety-one EM programs (95% of respondents) reported they teach BU, either clinically and/or didactically, as part of their formal residency curriculum. Eighty-one (89%) respondents reported their residency program or primary hospital emergency department (ED) had a dedicated ultrasound machine. BU was performed most commonly for the following: the FAST scan (focused abdominal sonography for trauma, 79/87%); cardiac examination (for tamponade, pulseless electrical activity, etc., 65/71%); transabdominal (for intrauterine pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, etc., 58/64%); and transvaginal (for intrauterine pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, etc., 45/49%). One to ten hours of lecture on BU was provided in 43%, and one to ten hours of hands-on clinical instruction was provided in 48% of the EM programs. Emergency physicians were identified as the faculty most commonly involved in teaching BU to EM residents (86/95%). Sixty-one (69%) programs reported that EM faculty and/or residents made clinical decisions and patient dispositions based on the ED BU interpretation alone. Fourteen (19%) programs reported that no formal quality assurance program was in place. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ACGME-accredited EM residency programs currently incorporate BU training as part of their curriculum. The majority of BU instruction is done by EM faculty. The most commonly performed BU study is the FAST scan. The didactic component and clinical time devoted to BU instruction are variable between programs. Further standardization of training requirements between programs may promote increasing standardization of BU in future EM practice.     

Procedure Documentation in Emergency Medicine Residencies: A Time of Change

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify the methods of procedure documentation (PD) used by emergency medicine residency programs and to ascertain the number of programs that are transitioning to a more advanced system. Methods: All 122 ACGME-approved allopathic emergency medicine programs were contacted by telephone in December 2001. Survey information was obtained from the program director, an attending physician, a resident, or the residency coordinator. Results: The response rate was 92.6%. Seventeen programs (15%) reported using multiple methods of PD, with only 8% utilizing a formal database. Fifty-five percent reported that PD was manual. One third of all programs utilized a Web-based system for PD, while 13% required the use of personal digital assistants (PDAs). Nearly one fifth of programs stated they were changing to another form of PD, with the majority of those changing to a PDA format. Fifteen percent of programs purchased PDAs for their residents, and a similar proportion reported that the PDA was used by "most or all" of their residents to document procedures. Nearly four times as many programs (64%) reported that "most or all" of their residents utilized PDAs for clinical purposes. Conclusions: PDAs are used by a majority of residents for clinical purposes, although fewer utilize this resource for PD. Although most emergency medicine residency programs still utilize a manual system for PD, many programs are in transition to a more technologically advanced method.     

Improving Rural Access to Emergency Physicians

The recent Institute of Medicine report entitled The Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System acknowledges workforce issues in rural America but does not adequately address the current shortage of emergency medicine residency–trained and board-certified emergency physicians in rural America. Areas worthy of further attention to ameliorate this threat include 1) government and hospital support of emergency medicine resident educational debt load, 2) modification of residency review committee for emergency medicine guidelines to permit modified training programs that are rural focused, and 3) support of pilot projects designed to modify the delivery of rural emergency care under remote supervision by academic medical center–based practitioners. The authors discuss these potential solutions to help guide policy makers seeking to enhance rural emergency care delivery through a stronger emergency medicine workforce.     

Pediatric Pain Control and Conscious Sedation: A Survey of Emergency Medicine Residencies

Objective : To determine the availability and relative use of pediatric analgesia and sedation at sites of U.S. emergency medicine residency training programs.
Methods : A mail/telephone survey of residency directors at 80 U.S. emergency medicine residencies regarding resident experience with pediatric analgesia and sedation for painful procedures conducted during November 1991.
Results : Sixty of 80 surveys (75%) were completed and available for analysis. Emergency medicine faculty supervised conscious sedation and analgesia in 87% of responding programs, while pediatrics faculty and pediatrics-emergency medicine fellows supervised in the remainder. Ninety-three percent of the programs had sedating agents available in the emergency department; only four programs needed to have drugs brought from the pharmacy. Thirty-four programs (57%) had formal protocols for the administration of these drugs. Seventy-seven percent of the programs had airway resuscitation equipment at the bedside, while only 63% brought resuscitation drugs. However, 60% of the programs reported complications of sedation, including respiratory depression, prolonged sedation, agitation, and vomiting. The most commonly used agents were midazolam (82%), meperidine alone (68%) and with promethazine and chlorpromazine (67%), and chloral hydrate (67%). Only 25% of the programs used nitrous oxide, and 30% used ketamine.
Conclusions : Emergency medicine residencies generally have available agents for pain control and conscious sedation in children, although the agents used vary widely. Appropriate instruction by trained faculty should enhance resident experience with pediatric pain control and sedation.     

A Survey of Nonphysician Medical Screening Examinations in Academic Emergency Medicine

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportions of U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residency programs that use nonphysicians to perform medical screening examinations (MSEs) in lieu of a physician evaluation. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional observational study consisting of a mail survey of the 109 base hospitals of accredited U.S. EM residency programs. Follow-up letters were sent twice to nonrespondents. Questions regarding ED demographics, the performance and structure of MSEs by physicians and nonphysicians, and the exact nature and purpose of such examinations were included. RESULTS: Ninety of 109 (83%) programs responded. Eighty-seven of the 90 programs (97%) perform MSEs on all patients presenting to the ED prior to discharge. Thirty-seven percent (33/90) perform nonphysician MSEs (NPMSEs) at least some of the time. Fifty percent (16/32) refer patients to an outside facility based on the result of the screening, and in 32% of cases the patient is not offered the choice of an ED evaluation. Seventy percent (19/27) at times refer patients, including uninsured patients, to a same-day clinic within their hospital system. Seven of 27 (26%) programs performing NPMSEs reported occasional adverse events, defined as two to 11 per year. Eight of 22 (36%) reported poorer clinical outcomes than expected from ED care as a result of the NPMSE, and 18 of 25 (72%) reported some degree of patient dissatisfaction. Two programs reported death as a result of NPMSEs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of NPMSEs is common and is frequently used as a basis for referring patients away from the ED without a physician examination. Using NPMSEs may be associated with adverse events, including patient dissatisfaction, morbidity, and possibly, mortality.     

Obstetric and Gynecologic Ultrasound Curriculum and Competency Assessment in Residency Training Programs: Consensus Report

Ultrasound imaging has become integral to the practice of obstetrics and gynecology. With increasing educational demands and limited hours in residency programs, dedicated time for training and achieving competency in ultrasound has diminished substantially. The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine assembled a multisociety task force to develop a consensus‐based, standardized curriculum and competency assessment tools for obstetric and gynecologic ultrasound training in residency programs. The curriculum and competency assessment tools were developed based on existing national and international guidelines for the performance of obstetric and gynecologic ultrasound examinations and thus are intended to represent the minimum requirement for such training. By expert consensus, the curriculum was developed for each year of training, criteria for each competency assessment image were generated, the pass score was established at, or close to, 75% for each, and obtaining a set of 5 ultrasound images with pass score in each was deemed necessary for attaining each competency. Given the current lack of substantial data on competency assessment in ultrasound training, the task force expects that the criteria set forth in this document will evolve with time. The task force also encourages use of ultrasound simulation in residency training and expects that simulation will play a significant part in the curriculum and the competency assessment process. Incorporating this training curriculum and the competency assessment tools may promote consistency in training and competency assessment, thus enhancing the performance and diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound examination in obstetrics and gynecology.     

Current Status of Academic Emergency Medicine within Academic Medicine in the United States

ABSTRACT
Objective : To characterize the status of emergency medicine within U.S. academic medical centers.
Methods : All accredited emergency medicine residency programs and all four-year allopathic medical schools in the United States were identified. Institutions were defined as academic medical centers based upon NIH research grant funding. These institutions were ranked using five measures of academic stature: a survey of medical school deans, a survey of internal medicine residency directors, level of research funding, characteristics of the student body, and an unweighted composite variable reflecting overall academic stature. The relationship between institutional academic stature and an empiric scale of institutional affiliation with emergency medicine was assessed.
Results : Sixty-two institutions were designated academic medical centers. These medical schools captured 90% of all NIH grant monies awarded in fiscal year 1990. Twenty-six of 87 emergency medicine residency programs (30%) were closely affiliated with one of these medical schools. Within academic medical centers, the presence of a residency or an academic department of emergency medicine was inversely associated with the medical school deans' ranking (p < 0.005), research rank (p < 0.001), and composite academic rank (p < 0.0001).
Conclusion : The majority of emergency medicine residency programs (70%) are not closely affiliated with institutions receiving the bulk (90%) of NIH resources for research. Within the institutions receiving the majority of NIH funding, there is a quantitatively and statistically significant inverse association of institutional emergency medicine affiliation and institutional academic rank.     

Assessing clinical competence in physical medicine & rehabilitation residency programs

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of resident clinical competence is a complex task. A multimodal approach is necessary to capture all of the dimensions of competence. Recent guidelines from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education delineate six general competencies that physicians should posses. Application of these guidelines presents challenges to residency program directors in defining educational experiences and evaluation methods. DESIGN: We surveyed 81 physical medicine and rehabilitation program directors regarding assessment tools used in their programs. Seventy-five percent responded. The most frequently used assessment tools included: In-training self-assessment examinations, faculty evaluations, direct observation, and conference participation. Program directors assigned the highest values to direct observation, faculty evaluations, self-assessment examinations, and oral examinations. RESULTS: Of the general competencies, more than 90% of program directors believed they did an adequate job rating dimensions of patient care, medical knowledge, professionalism, and communication skills. Approximately one-third, however, thought they did a less than fair job rating practice-based learning and improvement and systems-based practice. The majority of programs reported that they were able to identify a resident with difficulties during the first year of training, 44% within the first 6 months. Program directors reported that their residents spend a significant amount of their time with nurses and therapists during their inpatient rotations; however, this was not reflected in their evaluation practices, in which only one-fourth of programs reported the use of nurses and therapists in evaluating residents. CONCLUSIONS: Survey results indicate that physical medicine and rehabilitation program directors apply a variety of assessment tools in evaluating resident clinical competence. Although perceptions about the relative value of these tools vary, most programs report a high value to direct observation of residents by faculty. Of the six general competencies, program directors struggle the most with their evaluation of practice-based learning and improvement and systems-based practice.     

Executive Summary: The Institute of Medicine Report and the Future of Academic Emergency Medicine: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine Panel: Association of American Medical Colleges Annual Meeting, October 28, 2006

The findings in the Institute of Medicine's Future of Emergency Care reports, released in June 2006, emphasize that emergency physicians work in a fragmented system of emergency care with limited interhospital and out‐of‐hospital care coordination, too few on‐call specialists, minimal disaster readiness, strained inpatient resources, and inadequate pediatric emergency services. Areas warranting special attention at academic medical centers (AMCs), both those included within the report and others warranting further attention, were reviewed by a distinguished panel and include the following: 1) opportunities to strengthen and leverage the educational environment within the AMC emergency department; 2) research opportunities created by emergency medicine (EM) serving as an interdisciplinary bridge in the area of clinical and translational research; 3) enhancement of federal guidelines for observational and interventional emergency care research; 4) recognition of the importance of EM residency training, the role of academic departments of EM, and EM subspecialty development in critical care medicine and out‐of‐hospital and disaster medicine; 5) further assessment of the impact of a regional emergency care model on patient outcomes and exploration of the role of AMCs in the development of such a model (e.g., geriatric and pediatric centers of EM excellence); 6) the opportunity to use educational loan forgiveness to encourage rural EM practice and the development of innovative EM educational programs linked to rural hospitals; and 7) the need to address AMC emergency department crowding and its adverse effect on quality of care and patient safety. Strategic plans should be developed on a local level in conjunction with support from national EM organizations, allied health care, specialty organizations, and consumer groups to help implement the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine report. The report recommendations and other related recommendations brought forward during the panel discussions should be addressed through innovative programs and policy development at the regional and federal levels.     

A Model Longitudinal Observation Medicine Curriculum for an Emergency Medicine Residency

The role of observation services for emergency department patients has increased in recent years. Driven by changing health care practices and evolving payer policies, many hospitals in the United States currently have or are developing an observation unit (OU) and emergency physicians are most often expected to manage patients in this setting. Yet, few residency programs dedicate a portion of their clinical curriculum to observation medicine. This knowledge set should be integrated into the core training curriculum of emergency physicians. Presented here is a model observation medicine longitudinal training curriculum, which can be integrated into an emergency medicine (EM) residency. It was developed by a consensus of content experts representing the observation medicine interest group and observation medicine section, respectively, from EM's two major specialty societies: the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP). The curriculum consists of didactic, clinical, and self‐directed elements. It is longitudinal, with learning objectives for each year of training, focusing initially on the basic principles of observation medicine and appropriate observation patient selection; moving to the management of various observation appropriate conditions; and then incorporating further concepts of OU management, billing, and administration. This curriculum is flexible and designed to be used in both academic and community EM training programs within the United States. Additionally, scholarly opportunities, such as elective rotations and fellowship training, are explored.     

Emergency Medicine Resident Errors Identification and Educational Utilization

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the error management systems emergency medicine residency directors (EMRDs) use to identify and report clinical errors made by emergency medicine residents and their satisfaction with error-based teaching as an educational tool. METHODS: All 112 EMRDs listed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1996 were sent a 15-item survey. Five areas of error evaluation and management were assessed: 1) systems for tracking and reporting clinical errors; 2) resident participation in the systems; 3) resident remediation; 4) EMRD-perceived satisfaction with current error-reporting mechanisms, their educational value, and their ability to identify and prevent errors; and 5) EMRDs' perceptions of faculty and resident satisfaction with the systems. RESULTS: The response rate was 86%. All EMRDs indicated that methods are in place to track and report errors at their institutions. These include morbidity and mortality conference (94%), quality assurance case review conference (76%), and continuous quality improvement audits (60%). A majority of programs (58%) present resident cases anonymously in order to enhance teaching (39%), to avoid embarrassment (28%), and to avoid individual blame (24%). While mandated resident remediation is not required at 48% of the programs, 24% require lectures, 17% require written reports, and 6% require extra clinical shifts. The EMRDs rated the educational value of morbidity and mortality conference as outstanding (11%) or excellent (53%), and rated their systems for identifying key resident errors as outstanding (0%), excellent (14%), or good (47%). CONCLUSIONS: All emergency medicine residency programs have systems to track and report resident errors. Resident participation varies widely, as does resident remediation processes. Most EMRDs are satisfied with their systems but few EMRDs rate them as excellent in the detection or prevention of clinical errors.     

2001-2002 SAEM Emergency Medicine Faculty Salary and Benefits Survey

OBJECTIVE: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) commissioned an emergency medicine (EM) faculty salary and benefits survey for all 2001 residency review committee (RRC)-EM-accredited programs using the SAEM fifth-generation survey instrument. Responses were collected by SAEM and blinded from the investigators. Data represent compensation paid for the 2001-02 academic year. Seventy-six of 124 (61%) accredited programs responded, yielding usable data on 1,355 full-time faculty representing all four Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) regions. METHODS: Blinded program and individual faculty data were entered into a customized version of Filemaker Pro, a relational database program with a built-in statistical package. Salary data were sorted by criteria such as program region, faculty title, American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) certification, academic rank, years postresidency, program size, and whether data were reported to the AAMC. Demographic data were analyzed with regard to numerous criteria, including department staffing levels, emergency department (ED) volumes, ED length of stay, department income sources, salary incentive components, research funding, and specific type and value of fringe benefits offered. Data were compared with those from previous SAEM studies. RESULTS: Mean salaries were reported as follows: all faculty, $180,913; first-year faculty, $147,746; programs reporting data to the AAMC, $174,354; programs not reporting data to the AAMC, $191,397. Mean salaries as reported by AAMC region: northeast, $178,593; south, $176,314; midwest, $200,095; west, $166,779. Full-time emergency medicine residency program faculty work an average of 1,129 clinical hours per year. CONCLUSIONS: Reported salaries for full-time EM residency faculty have risen approximately 8.7% since the last survey. Up to approximately 1,200 clinical hours worked per year, salary varies inversely with clinical hours worked. Total per-faculty patient contact time (overall workload) has grown approximately 13% since the last survey. Patient wait times have increased approximately 27% since the last survey. Significant regional differences in salaries have been present in all five SAEM surveys. Emergency medicine residency faculty continue to work at the upper extremes of patient encounters per physician, patient acuity levels, and department lengths of stay.     

Observation Medicine in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate observation unit (OU) prevalence, emergency medicine (EM) resident exposure in observation medicine (OM), EM faculty/residency director (RD) OM training, and RD attitudes toward OM. METHODS: Information was obtained from residency programs by telephone during a four-month period. RESULTS: Survey respondents indicated that 36.1% have OUs and 44.9% plan to have an OU. Observation medicine resources include textbooks 32.0%, articles 45.9%, lectures 36.9%, fellowships 2.5%, and research 26.2%. Observation medicine patient care occurs: 1) during residency: 25.4% of RDs, 11.3% of entire faculty; 2) as an attending: 45.1% of RDs. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly two-thirds of EM programs have or are planning an OU. Resources are lagging behind. This survey describes current OM education strategies to teach OM.