Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:COVID-19 required healthcare systems to iteratively adapt for safe and up-to-date care as knowledge of the disease rapidly evolved. Rates of COVID-19 infections continue to fluctuate and patients without COVID-19 increasingly return to the emergency department (ED) for care. This leads to new challenges and threats to patient and clinician safety as suspected patients with COVID-19 need to be quickly detected and isolated among other patients with non-COVID-19-related illnesses. At the front lines, emergency physicians also face continued personal safety concerns and increased work burden, which heighten stress and anxiety, especially given the prolonged course of the pandemic. Burnout, already a serious concern for emergency physicians due to the cumulative stresses of their daily practice, may present as a longer-term outcome of these acute stressors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will implement a rapidly adaptive simulation-based approach to understand and improve physician preparedness while decreasing physician stress and anxiety. First, we will conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews and human factor observations to determine the challenges and facilitators of COVID-19 preparedness and mitigation of physician stress. Next, we will conduct a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a simulation preparedness intervention on physician physiological stress as measured by decreased heart rate variability on shift and anxiety as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for funding, and ethics approval was obtained from the Yale University Human Investigation Committee in 2020 (HIC# 2000029370 and 2000029372). To support ongoing efforts to address clinician stress and preparedness, we will strategically disseminate the simulation intervention to areas most impacted by COVID-19. Using a virtual telesimulation and webinar format, the dissemination efforts will provide hands-on learning for ED and hospital administrators as well as simulation educators. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT04614844.

OBJECTIVES:Agitation, defined as excessive psychomotor activity leading to aggressive or violent behaviour, is prevalent in the emergency department (ED) due to rising behavioural-related visits. Experts recommend use of verbal de-escalation and avoidance of physical restraint to manage agitation. However, bedside applications of these recommendations may be limited by system challenges in emergency care. This qualitative study aims to use a systems-based approach, which considers the larger context and system of healthcare delivery, to identify sociotechnical, structural, and process-related factors leading to agitation events and physical restraint use in the ED. DESIGN:Qualitative study using a grounded theory approach to triangulate interviews of patients who have been physically restrained with direct observations of agitation events. SETTING:Two EDs in the Northeast USA, one at a tertiary care academic centre and the other at a community-based teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS:We recruited 25 individuals who experienced physical restraint during an ED visit. In addition, we performed 95 observations of clinical encounters of agitation events on unique patients. Patients represented both behavioural (psychiatric, alcohol/drug use) and non-behavioural (medical, trauma) chief complaints. RESULTS:Three primary themes with implications for systems-based practice of agitation events in the ED emerged: (1) pathways within health and social systems; (2) interpersonal contexts as reflections of systemic stressors on behavioural emergency care and (3) systems-based and patient-oriented strategies and solutions. CONCLUSIONS:Agitation events represented manifestations of patients' structural barriers to care from socioeconomic inequities and high burden of emotional and physical trauma as well as staff members' simultaneous exposure to external stressors from social and healthcare systems. Potential long-term solutions may include care approaches that recognise agitated patients' exposure to psychological trauma, improved coordination within the mental health emergency care network, and optimisation of physical environment conditions and organisational culture.

STUDY OBJECTIVE:Agitation, defined as excessive psychomotor activity leading to violent and aggressive behavior, is becoming more prevalent in the emergency department (ED) amidst a strained behavioral health system. Team-based interventions have demonstrated promise in promoting de-escalation, with the hope of minimizing the need for invasive techniques, like physical restraints. This study aimed to evaluate an interprofessional code response team intervention to manage agitation in the ED with the goal of decreasing physical restraint use. METHODS:This quality improvement study occurred over 3 phases, representing stepwise rollout of the intervention: (1) preimplementation (phase I) to establish baseline outcome rates; (2) design and administrative support (phase II) to conduct training and protocol design; and (3) implementation (phase III) of the code response team. An interrupted time-series analysis was used to compare trends between phases to evaluate the primary outcome of physical restraint orders occurring during the study period. RESULTS:Within the 634,578 ED visits over a 5-year period, restraint use significantly declined sequentially over the 3 phases (1.1%, 0.9%, and 0.8%, absolute change -0.3% between phases I and III, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.4% to 0.3%), which corresponded to a 27.3% proportionate decrease in restraint rates between phases I and III. For the interrupted time-series analysis, there was a significantly decreasing slope in biweekly restraints in phase II compared to phase I (slope, -0.05 restraints per 1,000 ED visits per 2-week period, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03), which was sustained in an incremental fashion in phase III (slope, -0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02). CONCLUSION:With the implementation of a structured agitation code response team intervention combined with design and administrative support, a decreased rate of physical restraint use occurred over a 5-year period. Results suggest that investment in organizational change, along with interprofessional collaboration during the management of agitated patients in the ED, can lead to sustained reductions in the use of an invasive and potentially harmful measure on patients.

SUMMARY STATEMENT/CONCLUSIONS:As the field of healthcare simulation matures, formal accreditation for simulation fellowships and training programs has become increasingly available and touted as a solution to standardize the education of those specializing in healthcare simulation. Some simulation experts hold opposing views regarding the potential value of simulation fellowship program accreditation. We report on the proceedings of a spirited debate at the 20th International Meeting on Simulation in Healthcare in January 2020. Pro arguments view accreditation as the logical evolution of a maturing profession: improving training quality through standard setting, providing external validation for individual programs, and enhancing the program's return on investment. Con arguments view accreditation as an incompletely formulated construct; burdensome to the "financially strapped" fellowship director, misaligned with simulation fellows' needs and expectations, and confusing to administrators mistakenly equating accreditation with credentialing. In addition, opponents of accreditation postulate that incorporating curricular standards, practice guidelines, and strategies derived and implemented without rigor, supporting evidence and universal consensus is premature. This narrative review of our debate compares and contrasts contemporary perspectives on simulation fellowship program accreditation, concluding with formal recommendations for learners, administrators, sponsors, and accrediting bodies.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:A variety of stressors are encountered while working in the emergency department and are often recreated in simulation-based medical education. We seek to examine the physiologic and stress state response of participants in a simulated clinical environment to commonly encountered stressors. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Emergency medicine (EM) residents participated in a randomized, controlled trial of six simulated patient encounters with one of three stressors, medical difficulty, interpersonal challenge, and technology/equipment failure, randomized into each scenario. Participants wore smart shirts to measure heart rate variability (HRV) at rest and just after the introduced stressor and completed the Short Stress State Questionnaire (SSSQ) before and after each scenario. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 0.8452). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Interpersonal challenge stressor was significantly associated with an increase in distress in EM residents during the simulated encounters as compared to the other stressors. While heart rate variability decreased from rest for each stressor as expected following stressor introduction, differing stressors did not produce a differential change.

BACKGROUND:The presentation of critically ill patients to emergency departments often necessitates interhospital transfer (IHT) to a tertiary care center for specialized neurocritical care. Patients with nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage represent a critically ill population subject to high rates of IHT and who is thus an important target for research and quality improvement of IHT. We describe the use of an innovative simulation methodology engaging transfer staff, clinicians, and stakeholders to refine and facilitate the adoption of a standardized IHT protocol for transferring patients with neurovascular emergencies. METHODS:This was a qualitative study using a phenomenological approach. Participants consisted of IHT call center staff members, neurointensivists, neurosurgeons, and emergency physicians. We conducted a standardized telephone-based simulation case to prime participants for feedback on their experiences with IHT for intracranial hemorrhage patients. Facilitators conducted focus groups immediately after the simulation to identify process improvement opportunities. A structured thematic analysis identified overarching concepts from the data. RESULTS:We achieved data saturation with 7 simulations and a total of 24 participants. Thematic analysis identified 3 IHT-specific themes: (1) challenges unique to multispecialty critical illness, (2) interdisciplinary relationships and dynamics, and (3) communication and information processing for IHT. Three quality improvement initiatives emerged from the debriefings: standardized communication checklist, early acceptance protocol, and structure for telephone-based care handoffs. CONCLUSIONS:We demonstrate the use of telephone-based simulation technology to identify potential pitfalls and accelerate the adoption of a new IHT protocol for patients with nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage. New quality improvement strategies can organically result through interprofessional debriefings for patients with potentially complex handoffs between hospitals.

BACKGROUND:Over 1.7 million episodes of agitation occur annually across the United States in emergency departments (EDs), some of which lead to workplace assaults on clinicians and require invasive methods like physical restraints to maintain staff and patient safety. Recent studies demonstrated that experiences of workplace violence contribute to symptoms of burnout, which may impact future decisions regarding use of physical restraints on agitated patients. To capture the dynamic interactions between clinicians and agitated patients under their care, we applied qualitative system dynamics methods to develop a model that describes feedback mechanisms of clinician burnout and the use of physical restraints to manage agitation. METHODS:We convened an interprofessional panel of clinician stakeholders and agitation experts for a series of model building sessions to develop the current model. The panel derived the final version of our model over ten sessions of iterative refinement and modification, each lasting approximately three to four hours. We incorporated findings from prior studies on agitation and burnout related to workplace violence, identifying interpersonal and psychological factors likely to influence our outcomes of interest to form the basis of our model. RESULTS:The final model resulted in five main sets of feedback loops that describe key narratives regarding the relationship between clinician burnout and agitated patients becoming physically restrained: (1) use of restraints decreases agitation and risk of assault, leading to increased perceptions of safety and decreasing use of restraints in a balancing feedback loop which stabilizes the system; (2) clinician stress leads to a perception of decreased safety and lower threshold to restrain, causing more stress in a negatively reinforcing loop; (3) clinician burnout leads to a decreased perception of colleague support which leads to more burnout in a negatively reinforcing loop; (4) clinician burnout leads to negative perceptions of patient intent during agitation, thus lowering threshold to restrain and leading to higher task load, more likelihood of workplace assaults, and higher burnout in a negatively reinforcing loop; and (5) mutual trust between clinicians causes increased perceptions of safety and improved team control, leading to decreased clinician stress and further increased mutual trust in a positively reinforcing loop. CONCLUSIONS:Our system dynamics approach led to the development of a robust qualitative model that illustrates a number of important feedback cycles that underly the relationships between clinician experiences of workplace violence, stress and burnout, and impact on decisions to physically restrain agitated patients. This work identifies potential opportunities at multiple targets to break negatively reinforcing cycles and support positive influences on safety for both clinicians and patients in the face of physical danger.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Follow-up and feedback foster improvement. General emergency medicine providers working in community hospitals desire follow-up and feedback on pediatric patients transferred to children's hospitals. We implemented a novel program to provide these data to our colleagues. The objective of this study was to explore stakeholder perspectives of our program. METHODS:We provided secure, electronic reports on transfers from 7 general emergency departments (GEDs). Patient follow-up and feedback data were delivered to the GED's pediatric emergency care coordinator. Seven pediatric emergency care coordinators and 2 children's hospital liaisons participated in semistructured interviews. Five researchers coded and analyzed transcribed data using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. Codes were refined and clustered to develop themes. RESULTS:Perceived values of the program included GED appreciation of closing the loop on transferred patients, providing education, and informing quality improvement. Participants valued the concise and timely nature of the reports and their empathetic delivery. Facilitators of program implementation included established professional relationships between the GED and the children's hospital liaisons and a GED's culture of self-inquiry. Barriers to program implementation included potential medicolegal exposure and the time burden for report generation and processing. Suggested programmatic improvements included focusing on generalizable, evidence-based learning points and analyzing care trends. CONCLUSIONS:Stakeholders of our pediatric posttransfer follow-up and feedback program reported many benefits and provided key suggestions that may promote successful dissemination of similar programs nationwide. Examining data trends in transferred children may focus efforts to improve the care of children across all emergency care settings.

This cross-sectional study explores the use of physical restraint on youth at risk of harming themselves or others in the emergency department, stratified by race and ethnicity.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Simulation use in research is often limited by controlling for scenario difficulty when using repeated measures. Our study assesses the feasibility of the Modified Angoff Method to reach expert consensus regarding difficulty of medical simulations. We compared scores with participant physiologic stress. METHODS:Emergency medicine physicians with expertise in simulation education were asked to review 8 scenarios and estimate the percentage of resident physicians who would perform all critical actions using the modified Angoff method. A standard deviation (SD) of less than 10% of estimated percentage correct signified consensus. Twenty-five residents then performed the 6 scenarios that met consensus and heart rate variability (HRV) was measured. RESULTS:During round 1, experts rated 4/8 scenarios within a 10% SD for postgraduate year 3 (PGY3) and 3/8 for PGY4 residents. In round 2, 6/8 simulation scenarios were within an SD of 10% points for both years. Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.84 for PGY3 ratings and 0.89 for PGY4 ratings. A mixed effects analysis of variance showed no significant difference in HRV change from rest to simulation between teams or scenarios. Modified Angoff Score was not a predictor of HRV (multiple R2 = 0.0176). CONCLUSIONS:Modified Angoff ratings demonstrated consensus in quantifying the estimated percentage of participants who would complete all critical actions for most scenarios. Although participant HRV did decrease during the scenarios, we were unable to significantly correlate this with ratings. This modified Angoff method is a feasible approach to evaluate simulation difficulty for educational and research purposes and may decrease the time and resources necessary for scenario piloting.