Rivera, Mariela

Abstract Background Central venous catheterization (CVC) is a fundamental procedural competency in pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM). Although commercially available task trainers are effective for teaching CVC placement, their high cost and logistical requirements can limit access to repeated practice. Objective To evaluate learner and faculty perceptions and usability of a newly developed CVC simulation model compared with a standard commercial task trainer and detail the technical report of the novel model’s construction. Methods We conducted a prospective educational evaluation during the PCCM CVC workshop. Participants practiced CVC placement with both the standard commercial trainer and a locally constructed simulation model developed at our institution. Teaching faculty were asked to evaluate both models from an instructional standpoint. Results Eighteen participants (15 PCCM 1st year fellows and 3 faculty instructors) evaluated the novel CVC simulation model. All fellows (n = 15, 100%) preferred the new model over a standard commercial model, with 14 (93%) reporting improved understanding of CVC insertion steps and 11 (73%) noting ease of ultrasound landmark identification. All fellows (n = 15, 100%) endorsed inclusion of the model in future workshops. Additionally, faculty instructors preferred the novel model for teaching (n = 3, 100%). All faculty supported future use of the model. The initial model development cost was approximately $288.96 with most materials’ reusable. Conclusions The novel task-aligned CVC simulation model offers a realistic, reusable, and cost-effective alternative to commercial simulators, with high learner and faculty preference and strong educational value. Its functional alignment supports integration into fellowship training, with future studies needed to assess objective skill acquisition and retention.

Introduction: Mass casualty incident (MCI) simulation scenarios are developed based on detailed review and planning by multidisciplinary trauma teams. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using generative artificial intelligence (AI) in developing mass casualty trauma simulation scenarios. The study evaluated a range of mass casualty trauma simulation scenarios generated from a public generative artificial intelligence platform based on publicly available data with a validated objective simulation scoring tool. Methods: Using a large language model (LLM) platform (ChatGPT4, OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), 10 complex MCI trauma simulation scenarios were generated based on publicly available US reported trauma data. Each scenario was evaluated by two Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) certified raters based on the Simulation Scenario Evaluation Tool (SSET), a validated scoring tool out of 100 points. The tool scoring is based on learning objectives, tasks for performance, clinical progression, debriefing criteria, and resources. Two publicly available mass casualty trauma scenarios were similarly evaluated as controls. Revision and recommended feedback was provided for the scenarios, with review time recorded. Post-revision scenarios were evaluated. Interrater reliability was calculated based on Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (2, k) (ICCs). For the scenarios, scores and review times were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) as 25th and 75th percentiles. Results: Ten mass casualty trauma simulation scenarios were generated by an LLM, producing a total of 62 simulated patients. The initial LLM-generated scenarios demonstrated a median SSET score of 78.5 (IQR 74–82), substantially lower than the median score of 94 (IQR 93–95) observed in publicly available scenarios. The interrater reliability ICC for the LLM-generated scenarios was 0.965 and 1.00 for publicly available scenarios. Following secondary human revision and iterative refinement, the LLM-generated scenarios improved, achieving a median SSET score of 94 (IQR 93–96) with an interrater reliability ICC of 0.7425. Conclusions: The feasibility study suggests that a structured, collaborative workflow combining LLM-based generation with expert human review may enable a new approach to mass casualty trauma simulation scenario creation. LLMs hold promise as a scalable tool for the development of MCI training materials. However, consistent human oversight, quality assurance processes, and governance frameworks remain essential to ensure clinical accuracy, safety, and educational value.

Abstract Rationale Endotracheal intubation is the third most common bedside procedure in U.S. hospitals. In over 40% of intubations, preventable complications attributable to human factors occur. A better understanding of team dynamics during intubation may improve patient safety. Objectives To explore team dynamics and safety-related actions during emergent endotracheal intubations in the emergency department and intensive care unit and to engage members of the care team in reflection for process improvement through a novel video-based team debriefing technique. Methods Video-reflexive ethnography involves in situ video recording and reflexive discussions with practitioners to scrutinize behaviors and to identify opportunities for improvement. In this study, real-time intubations were recorded in the emergency department and intensive care unit at Mayo Clinic Rochester, and facilitated video-reflexive sessions were conducted with the multidisciplinary procedural teams. Themes about team dynamics and safety-related action were identified inductively from transcriptions of recorded sessions. Results Between December 2022 and January 2023, eight video-reflexive sessions were conducted with a total of 78 participants. Multidisciplinary members included nurses (n = 23), respiratory therapists (n = 16), pharmacists (n = 7), advanced practitioners (n = 5), and physicians (n = 26). In video-reflexive discussions, major safety gaps were identified and several solutions were proposed related to the use of a multidisciplinary intubation checklist, standardized communication and team positioning, developing a culture of safety, and routinely debriefing after the procedure. Conclusions The findings of this study may inform the development of a team supervision model for emergent endotracheal intubations. This approach could integrate key components such as a multidisciplinary intubation checklist, standardized communication and team positioning, a culture of safety, and debriefing as part of the procedure itself.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate effectiveness and safety outcomes associated with the use of ketamine for primary analgosedation in the surgical/trauma ICU setting. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic medical center in Minnesota. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to the surgical ICU between 2015 and 2019 requiring mechanical ventilation and meeting one of three definitions for ketamine primary analgosedation were included: 1) no concomitant opioid infusion, 2) ketamine monotherapy for greater than or equal to 6 hours with subsequent opioid infusion, or 3) ketamine initiated concomitantly or within 4 hours of opioid and total opioid duration less than 4 hours. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Use of ketamine, analgesics, and sedatives were evaluated. Pain, sedation, and delirium assessments immediately before and during ketamine infusion were collected and compared with reported goals. Concomitant analgesics, sedatives, and psychotropics were recorded. Reported failures due to ineffectiveness and toxicity were collected. MAIN RESULTS: Of 164 included patients, 88% never received a concomitant opioid infusion (primary analgosedation definition 1), 12% met alternative criteria for primary analgosedation (definitions 2 and 3). A majority, 68%, were surgical admissions and mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score was 90 (± 30). Median mechanical ventilation duration was 2.5 days (1.1–4.5) and ICU length of stay of 4.9 days (3–8). The median ketamine infusion dose and duration were 0.18 mg/kg/hr (0.1–0.3) and 30 hours (15.1–51.8). Concomitant infusions of propofol and dexmedetomidine were administered in 49% and 29% of patients, respectively. During ketamine infusion, the median percent of total pain scores at goal was 62% (33–96%), while 64% (37–91%) of Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scores were at goal, and 47% of patients were Confusion Assessment Method-ICU positive during the ketamine infusion. Hallucinations were documented in 14% of patients and ketamine failure occurred in 11% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine may be an effective primary analgosedation option in intubated surgical ICU patients, but prospective randomized studies are needed to evaluate this strategy.

ABSTRACT Background The COVID-19 pandemic affected graduate medical education (GME) by decreasing elective procedures and disrupting didactic learning activities in 2020. Editorials have hypothesized that resident physicians worked fewer hours, therefore losing valuable experience, but we are not aware of studies that have objectively assessed changes in hours worked. Objective This study aims to identify differences secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic in resident work hours across all specialties at 3 geographically dispersed, integrated academic hospitals in a large sponsoring institution. Methods We obtained de-identified work hour data from all residency programs at Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. Resident work hours were compared between 2020 and 2019 from March to May. Results Work hours for 1149 and 1118 residents during the pandemic and control periods respectively were compared. Decreases in resident work hours were seen, with the largest decrease demonstrated in April 2020 when 19 of 43 programs demonstrated significantly decreased work hours. Residents worked more hours from home in April 2020 compared to the previous year (Arizona: mean 1 hour in 2019 vs 5.2 hours in 2020, P<.001; Florida: mean 0.7 hour in 2019 vs 6.5 hours in 2020, P<.001; Minnesota: mean 0.8 hour in 2019 vs 10.2 hours in 2020, P<.001). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a decrease in work hours in some, but not all, specialties. The decrease in on-site work was only partially offset by an increased number of hours worked from home.

AbstractIntroductionAlthough seemingly straightforward, tube thoracostomy (TT) has been associated with complication rates as high as 30 %. A lack of a standardized nomenclature for reporting TT complications makes comparison and evaluation of reports impossible. We aim to develop a classification method in order to standardize the reporting of complications of TT and identify all reported complications of TT and time course in which they occurred to validate the reporting method.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews from each databases inception through November 5, 2013 was conducted. Original articles written in the English language reporting TT complications were searched. This review adhered to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) standards. Duplicate reviewers abstracted case reports for inclusion. Cases were then sorted into one of the five complication categories by two reviewers, and in case of disagreements, settled by a third reviewer.ResultsOf 751 papers reporting TT complications, 124 case reports were included for analysis. From these reports, five main categories of TT complications were identified: insertional (n = 65); positional (n = 36); removal (n = 11); infective and immunologic (n = 7); and instructional, educational, or equipment related (n = 5). Placement of TT has occurred in nearly every soft tissue and vascular structure in the thoracic cavity and intra‐abdominal organs.ConclusionOur classification method provides further clarity and systematic standardization for reporting TT complications.