Rowlandson, Ian

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.