Kates, Andrew M.

Background: The impact of computer ECG interpretation (CEI) on medical professionals’ performance is understudied. This study aims to assess the interpretation proficiency of diverse medical professionals with and without access to CEI reports. Methods: Medical professionals from diverse backgrounds interpreted 60 12-lead ECGs with urgent and non-urgent findings. The interpretation process involved two interpretation phases: (i) 30 ECGs with clinical statements and (ii) the same 30 ECGs and clinical statements in random order along with a CEI report. Diagnostic performance was evaluated based on interpretation accuracy, time per ECG, and self-reported confidence (rated 0 [not confident], 1 [somewhat confident], or 2 [confident]). Results: Among 892 participants, there were 44 (4.9%) primary care physicians, 123 (13.8%) cardiology fellows-in-training, 259 (29.0%) resident physicians, 137 (15.4%) medical students, 56 (6.3%) advanced practice providers, 82 (9.2%) nurses, and 191 (21.4%) allied health professionals. The inclusion of the CEI significantly improved interpretation accuracy by 15.1% (95% CI, 14.3 to 16.0; P<0.001), reduced interpretation time by 52 seconds (95% CI, -56 to -48; P<0.001), and increased confidence by 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.09; P=0.003) (Table 1) . Conclusions: CEI integration improves ECG interpretation accuracy, efficiency, and confidence across medical professionals. Nevertheless, even with CEI, significant gaps in ECG interpretation proficiency remain.

Background: Accurate ECG interpretation is vital, but variations in skills exist among healthcare professionals. This study aims to identify factors contributing to ECG interpretation proficiency. Methods: Survey data and ECG test scores from participants in the EDUCATE Trial were analyzed. The dependent variable was the test score for interpreting 30 12-lead ECGs. Independent variables included non-modifiable factors (physician status, clinical experience, patient care impact) and modifiable factors (weekly interpretations, training hours, expert supervision frequency). Bivariate and multivariate analyses generated the Comprehensive Model (all factors) and Actionable Model (modifiable factors only). Results: Among 1206 participants, there were 72 (6.0%) primary care physicians, 146 (12.1%) cardiology fellows-in-training, 353 (29.3%) resident physicians, 182 (15.1%) medical students, 84 (7.0%) advanced practice providers, 120 (9.9%) nurses, and 249 (20.7%) allied health professionals. Physicians accounted for 571 (47.3%) of participants, while 453 (37.6%) were non-physicians. Bivariate analysis showed associations between test scores and multiple variables (Table 1) . In the Comprehensive Model, scores were independently associated with weekly interpretations (9.9 score increase; 95% CI 7.9-11.8; P<0.001), physician status (9.0 score increase; 95% CI 7.2-10.8; P<0.001), and training hours (5.7 score increase; 95% CI 3.7-7.6; P<0.001). In the Actionable Model, scores were independently associated with weekly interpretations (12.0 score increase; 95% CI, 10.0-14.0; P<0.001) and training hours (4.7 score increase; 95% CI 2.6-6.7; P<0.001). The Comprehensive and Actionable Models accounted for 18.7% and 12.3% of the variance in test scores, respectively. Conclusions: Being a physician is a non-modifiable predictor, while training and regular practice are modifiable predictors of ECG interpretation performance.

Background: Gaps in ECG interpretation competency among medical professionals exist, with a need for practical, evidence-based, and accessible learning solutions. We conducted an international, prospective, randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of web-based, self-directed ECG learning. Methods: A total of 1206 diverse medical learners and professionals underwent an initial test, followed by random assignment to one of four groups: (i) online question-bank (questions), (ii) online lectures (lectures), (iii) online, question-bank and lectures (hybrid), or (iv) no resources (control). After 4 months, a post-test was administered to evaluate the overall change in performance. Results: Of all participants, 863 (72%) completed the trial. After the 4-month follow-up, all three online, self-directed intervention groups (questions, lectures, and hybrid) showed significant improvement in overall performance (P<0.001), while the control group did not (P=0.544). The questions, lectures, and hybrid interventions demonstrated score improvements of +11.4% (95% CI, 9.1-13.7; P<0.001), +9.8% (95% CI, 7.8-11.9; P<0.001), and +11.0% (95% CI, 9.2-12.9; P<0.001) respectively, compared to +0.8% (95% CI, -1.2-2.8; P=0.544) for the control group. These improvements were consistent across medical professional groups (Figure 1) . Conclusions: Web-based, self-directed learning resources effectively improved ECG interpretation proficiency for diverse medical learners and professionals.

Background: ECG interpretation is crucial in medical practice, but professionals struggle with achieving and maintaining competency. Identifying proficiency gaps aids in designing educational interventions. Methods: Medical professionals from various disciplines interpreted 30 12-lead ECGs containing commonly taught urgent and non-urgent findings. Performance metrics evaluated were overall adjusted score (% of correctly identified findings using a point-value score based on clinical relevance), unadjusted score (% of correctly identified findings), interpretation time per ECG, and self-reported confidence (rated on an ordinal scale of 0 [not confident], 1 [somewhat confident], or 2 [confident]). Results: Among 1206 participants, there were 72 (6%) primary care physicians (PCPs), 146 (12%) cardiology fellows-in-training (FIT), 353 (29%) resident physicians, 182 (15%) medical students, 84 (7%) advanced practice providers (APPs), 120 (10%) nurses, 249 (21%) allied health professionals, 571 (47%) physicians, and 453 (38%) non-physicians. Participants had a mean adjusted score of 46.9% (± 15.9%), unadjusted score of 56.4% (± 17.2%), interpretation time of 142 seconds (± 67 seconds), and confidence of 0.83 (± 0.53) (Table 1) . Performance varied across groups; cardiology FIT had superior performance in all metrics. Physicians generally outperformed non-physicians, with higher overall adjusted score (52% vs. 43%; p<0.01), unadjusted score (62% vs. 52%; p<0.01), and confidence (0.91 vs. 0.80; p<0.01). Unadjusted score for PCPs was higher than nurses and APPs (58% vs. 47% and 51%; p<0.01) but lower than resident physicians (58% vs. 60%; p<0.01). Allied health professionals outperformed nurses and APPs and closely matched resident physicians and PCPs. Conclusions: Significant gaps in ECG interpretation proficiency exist, emphasizing the need for comprehensive, scalable, and accessible educational tools.