Merck, Lisa H.

AbstractObjectivesNeurovascular and neurocritical care emergencies constitute a leading cause of morbidity/mortality. There has been great evolution in this field, including but not limited to extended time‐window therapeutic interventions for acute ischemic stroke. The intent of this article is to evaluate the goals and future direction of clinical rotations in neurovascular and neurocritical care for emergency medicine (EM) residents.MethodsA panel of 13 board‐certified emergency physicians from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) neurologic emergencies interest group (IG) convened in response to a call for publications—three with fellowship training/board certification in stroke and/or neurocritical care; five with advanced research degrees; three who have been authors on national practice guidelines; and six who have held clinical duties within neurology, neurosurgery, or neurocritical care. A mixed‐methods analysis was performed including a review of the literature, a survey of Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) residency leaders/faculty and SAEM neuro‐IG members, and a consensus review by this panel of select neurology rotations provided by IG faculty.ResultsThirteen articles for residency neurovascular education were identified: three studies on curriculum, three studies evaluating knowledge, and seven studies evaluating knowledge after an educational intervention. Intervention outcomes included the ability to recognize and manage acute strokes, manage intracerebral hemorrhage, calculate National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and interpret images. In the survey sent to CORD residency leaders and neuro‐IG faculty, response was obtained from 48 programs. A total of 52.1% indicated having a required rotation (6.2% general neurology, 2% stroke service, 18.8% neurologic intensive care unit, 2% neurosurgery, 22.9% on a combination of services). The majority of programs with required rotations have a combination rotation (residents rotate through multiple services) and evaluations were positive.ConclusionsVariability exists in the availability of neurovascular/neurocritical care rotations for EM trainees. Dedicated clinical time in neurologic education was beneficial to participants. Given recent advancements in the field, augmentation of EM residency training in this area merits strong consideration.

AbstractPatient‐centered emergency diagnostic imaging relies on efficient communication and multispecialty care coordination to ensure optimal imaging utilization. The construct of the emergency diagnostic imaging care coordination cycle with three main phases (pretest, test, and posttest) provides a useful framework to evaluate care coordination in patient‐centered emergency diagnostic imaging. This article summarizes findings reached during the patient‐centered outcomes session of the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference “Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda to Optimize Utilization.” The primary objective was to develop a research agenda focused on 1) defining component parts of the emergency diagnostic imaging care coordination process, 2) identifying gaps in communication that affect emergency diagnostic imaging, and 3) defining optimal methods of communication and multidisciplinary care coordination that ensure patient‐centered emergency diagnostic imaging. Prioritized research questions provided the framework to define a research agenda for multidisciplinary care coordination in emergency diagnostic imaging.

AbstractDiagnostic imaging is integral to the evaluation of many emergency department (ED) patients. However, relatively little effort has been devoted to patient‐centered outcomes research (PCOR) in emergency diagnostic imaging. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference PCOR work group regarding “Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda to Optimize Utilization.” The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda to establish which outcomes related to emergency diagnostic imaging are most important to patients, caregivers, and other key stakeholders and which methods will most optimally engage patients in the decision to undergo imaging. Case vignettes are used to emphasize these concepts as they relate to a patient's decision to seek care at an ED and the care received there. The authors discuss applicable research methods and approaches such as shared decision‐making that could facilitate better integration of patient‐centered outcomes and patient‐reported outcomes into decisions regarding emergency diagnostic imaging. Finally, based on a modified Delphi process involving members of the PCOR work group, prioritized research questions are proposed to advance the science of patient‐centered outcomes in ED diagnostic imaging.