Faculty Bibliography

Objectives/UNASSIGNED:Prior literature has demonstrated incongruities among faculty evaluation of male and female residents' procedural competency during residency training. There are no known studies investigating gender differences in the assessment of procedural skills among emergency medicine (EM) residents, such as those required by ultrasound. The objective of this study was to determine if there are significant gender differences in ultrasound milestone evaluations during EM residency training. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We used a stratified, random cluster sample of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) EM residency programs to conduct a longitudinal, retrospective cohort analysis of resident ultrasound milestone evaluation data. Milestone evaluation data were collected from a total of 16 ACGME-accredited EM residency programs representing a 4-year period. We stratified milestone data by resident gender, date of evaluation, resident postgraduate year, and cohort (residents with the same starting date). Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 2,554 ultrasound milestone evaluations were collected from 1,187 EM residents (750 men [62.8%] and 444 women [37.1%]) by 104 faculty members during the study period. There was no significant overall difference in mean milestone score between female and male residents [mean difference = 0.01 (95% confidence interval {CI} = -0.04 to 0.05)]. There were no significant differences between female and male residents' mean milestone scores at the first (baseline) PGY1 evaluation (mean difference = -0.04 [95% CI = -0.09 to 0.003)] or at the final evaluation during PGY3 (mean difference = 0.02 [95% CI = -0.03 to 0.06)]. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Despite prior studies suggesting gender bias in the evaluation of procedural competency during residency training, our study indicates that there were no significant gender-related differences in the ultrasound milestone evaluations among EM residents within training programs throughout the United States.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Academic medicine continues to struggle in its efforts to compensate scholarly productivity. Academic achievements receive less recognition compared to clinical work, evidenced by a lack of reduced clinical hours or financial incentive. Core departmental education responsibilities are often distributed inequitably across academic departments. An approach using an incentive program, which emphasizes transparency, equity, and consensus may help academic departments share core education responsibilities and reward scholarly activity. METHODS:We launched a two-stage approach to confront the inequitable distribution of educational responsibilities and to recognize the scholarly work among our faculty. In the first stage, baseline education expectations were implemented for all faculty members, which included accountability procedures tied to a financial incentive. The second stage involved the creation of an aAcademic rRelative vValue uUnit (ARVU) system which contained additional activities that were derived and weighted based on stakeholder consensus. The points earned in the ARVU system were applied towards additional financial incentive at academic year-end. We compared education contributions before and after implementation as well as total points earned in the ARVU system. RESULTS:In the first year of implementing education expectations, 87% of faculty fulfilled requirements. Those with a heavier clinical load made up the majority of deficient faculty. Those who did not meet education expectations were notified and had their year-end incentive reduced to reflect this. Faculty conference attendance increased by 21% (P<.001) and the number of resident assessments completed increased by 30% (P<.001) compared to the previous year. To date, faculty across the department have logged a total of 1,240 academic activities in the database, which will be converted into financial bonus amounts at year-end. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We have seen significant increases in faculty participation in educational activities and learner assessments as well as documentation of activities in the ARVU system. A similar system using different specialty-specific activities may be generalizable and employed at other institutions.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Providing feedback is a fundamental principle in medical education; however, as educators, our community lacks the necessary skills to give meaningful, impactful feedback to those under our supervision. By improving our feedback-giving skills, we provide concrete ways for trainees to optimize their performance, ultimately leading to better patient care. Methods/UNASSIGNED:In this faculty development workshop, faculty groups used six feedback video vignettes scripted, enacted, and produced by residents to arrive at a shared mental model of feedback. During workshop development, we used qualitative analysis for faculty narratives combined with the findings from a focused literature review to define dimensions of feedback. Results/UNASSIGNED:Twenty-three faculty (physical medicine and rehabilitation and neurology) participated in seven small-group workshops. Analysis of group discussion notes yielded 343 codes that were collapsed into 25 coding categories. After incorporating the results of a focused literature review, we identified 48 items grouped into 10 dimensions of feedback. Online session evaluation indicated that faculty members liked the workshop's format and thought they were better at providing feedback to residents as a result of the workshop. Discussion/UNASSIGNED:Small faculty groups were able to develop a shared mental model of dimensions of feedback that was also grounded in medical education literature. The theme of specificity of feedback was prominent and echoed recent medical education research findings. Defining performance expectations for feedback providers in the form of a practical and psychometrically sound rubric can enhance reliable scoring of feedback performance assessments and should be the next step in our work.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Gamification is a powerful tool in medical education. SonoGames is a competitive games-based event designed to educate and inspire emergency medicine (EM) residents about point-of-care ultrasound. We sought to describe: (1) the perceived effectiveness of a competitive event on both immediate learning and long-term education; and (2) the resultant attitudes of participants and program directors regarding ultrasound training. METHODS:The SonoGames Organizational Committee designed 2 surveys: 1 for SonoGames V EM resident participants and a second for EM program directors. Survey questions used a 5-point Likert scale to assess overall perceptions and attitudes about ultrasound, changes in self-reported content knowledge and competency, effects on clinical use, and perceived impacts of a competitive game format on education. RESULTS:Seventy-three resident participants and 42 program directors responded to the survey. Ninety-four percent of participants thought that the competitive gaming format of SonoGames was effective in making the event an educational experience. Participants reported that their ultrasound knowledge increased (81%), their enthusiasm for ultrasound increased (87%), and their clinical use of ultrasound increased (61%). Residency program directors reported similar increases to a lesser degree. Greater advancement through the event was associated with more positive responses. Residencies that participated in the event saw greater increases in the use of ultrasound by residents than those that did not. CONCLUSIONS:A competitive games-based educational event focused on point-of-care ultrasound is an effective educational tool. SonoGames increases EM residents' knowledge, enthusiasm, and clinical use of ultrasound both during and after the event.

INTRODUCTION: Supporting an "ultrasound-first" approach to evaluating renal colic in the emergency department (ED) remains important for improving patient care and decreasing healthcare costs. Our primary objective was to compare emergency physician (EP) ultrasound to computed tomography (CT) detection of hydronephrosis severity in patients with suspected renal colic. We calculated test characteristics of hydronephrosis on EP-performed ultrasound for detecting ureteral stones or ureteral stone size >5mm. We then analyzed the association of hydronephrosis on EP-performed ultrasound, stone size >5mm, and proximal stone location with 30-day events. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of ED patients with suspected renal colic undergoing CT. Subjects had an EP-performed ultrasound evaluating for the severity of hydronephrosis. A chart review and follow-up phone call was performed. RESULTS: We enrolled 302 subjects who had an EP-performed ultrasound. CT and EP ultrasound results were comparable in detecting severity of hydronephrosis (x2=51.7, p<0.001). Hydronephrosis on EP-performed ultrasound was predictive of a ureteral stone on CT (PPV 88%; LR+ 2.91), but lack of hydronephrosis did not rule it out (NPV 65%). Lack of hydronephrosis on EP-performed ultrasound makes larger stone size >5mm less likely (NPV 89%; LR- 0.39). Larger stone size > 5mm was associated with 30-day events (OR 2.30, p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Using an ultrasound-first approach to detect hydronephrosis may help physicians identify patients with renal colic. The lack of hydronephrosis on ultrasound makes the presence of a larger ureteral stone less likely. Stone size >5mm may be a useful predictor of 30-day events.

BACKGROUND: Although thoracic aortic dissections are uncommon in young patients, they must be considered in the differential diagnosis in the presence of chest pain and abnormal vital signs. Although computed tomography angiography is the test of choice for thoracic dissection in the emergency department, point of care (POC) transthoracic echocardiography has a high specificity in the diagnosis of this disease. It is especially helpful in patients with proximal ascending dissections in the presence of a pericardial effusion. CASE REPORT: This case report illustrates a young patient presenting with chest pain, persistent tachycardia, and fever with a presumed upper respiratory infection who had an ascending thoracic dissection with tamponade discovered on POC echocardiography. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: POC echocardiography should be an important part of the algorithm in young patients presenting with chest pain and abnormal vital signs that do not improve with supportive measures. Definitive care in patients who present with a thoracic aortic dissection in the presence of cardiac tamponade diagnosed on POC echocardiography should not be delayed in order to wait for other imaging methods to be performed. POC echocardiography may expedite care and treatment in young patients presenting with this deadly disease.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:As point-of-care ultrasound units become more compact and portable, clinicians in over 20 different medical and surgical specialties have begun using the technology in diverse clinical applications. However, a knowledge gap still exists between what medical students are learning in their undergraduate medical education curriculum and the clinical skills required for practice. Over the last 10 years, point-of-care ultrasound content has been slowly incorporated into undergraduate medical education, yet only a handful of medical schools have developed ultrasound curricula. This module was developed at our institution in response to survey feedback from medical students overwhelmingly requesting preclerkship ultrasound education. The target audience for this module is first-year medical students with no prior ultrasound exposure. Methods/UNASSIGNED:The module consists of a 1-hour introductory lecture and a 1-hour hands-on session during the abdominal anatomy course. Associated materials include the introductory lecture, presenter notes for the introductory lecture, instructor guidelines for the hands-on session, hands-on session setup instructions, a student handout for the hands-on session, and a module evaluation form. Results/UNASSIGNED:We have successfully implemented this module for the past 3-years and learner feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Learner comments on a postmodule survey included, "Great job of explaining the science behind ultrasounds as well as how to interpret the images." Discussion/UNASSIGNED:As a result of our first-year students' evaluation responses, this module has been incorporated into our medical school's anatomy course.

PURPOSE: Our primary aim was to evaluate the use of ultrasound (US) as an initial screening test for diagnosing appendicitis in young adult men. Secondary exploratory analyses included the effects of using US for initial screening in these patients, compared with the use of CT, on radiation exposure, length of stay (LOS), and cost of imaging. METHODS: We retrospectively gathered data from the records of male patients 18-39 years old who had been admitted with appendicitis between June 2006 and September 2011. We investigated the diagnostic tests performed, the patients' characteristics, and the pathologic testing findings and compared the results obtained on US with those obtained on CT. RESULTS: Of 451 included patients, 86 had undergone US initially. Its sensitivity was only 57% (95% confidence interval, 46-67.6), but its positive predictive value was 98% (95% confidence interval, 93.8-100). The mean LOS was significantly shorter for patients who had undergone US only (214 minutes) than it was for those who had undergone CT only (276 minutes; p < 0.001). We estimated a 57% reduction in CT use and radiation exposure if US were to be performed initially; this would lead to a 45% decrease in imaging costs at our institution. CONCLUSIONS: Screening US should be considered first for diagnosing appendicitis because of its high positive predictive value, but even if US results are negative for appendicitis, one should not exclude the possible existence of pathology because US has poor sensitivity in this situation. We speculate that the use of screening US can decrease radiation exposure, imaging costs, and LOS. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound, 2015.