Sandefur, Benjamin J.

Background and importance Emergency airway management in the emergency department (ED) is a high-risk procedure associated with patient outcomes. First-attempt success is a widely recognized quality metric, as multiple attempts are associated with an increased risk of peri-intubation complications. In Brazil, where emergency medicine is a recently established specialty, many ED are staffed by physicians without formal emergency medicine training. The association between emergency medicine training and intubation outcomes in this setting has not been well characterized. Objective To assess the association of physician specialty with first-attempt success and immediate peri-intubation complications in Brazilian EDs. Design Secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort study from the Brazilian Airway Registry Cooperation. Setting and participants This study included adult patients who underwent tracheal intubation in EDs between March 2022 and April 2024. Patients were excluded if the intubation occurred outside the ED, during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or for elective procedures. Intubations performed by medical students were also excluded. Physicians were categorized by specialty as emergency medicine or nonemergency medicine. Outcome measures and analysis The primary outcome was first-attempt success; secondary outcomes included peri-intubation complications (severe hypoxemia, hemodynamic instability, and cardiac arrest). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between physician specialty and outcomes. Main results Among 2582 patients, 1087 (42.1%) were intubated by emergency physicians and 1495 (57.9%) by other physicians (mainly internal medicine and surgery). Intubations by emergency physicians were associated with a higher rate of first-attempt success [80.4 vs. 70.9%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34–1.97]. There was also a higher odds of intubations without major complications (aOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.01–1.42). Conclusion In this study, there was a higher rate of first-attempt success in intubations performed by board-certified emergency physicians compared with other physicians working in Brazilian EDs.

Abstract Purpose Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is a common emergency department (ED) procedure with an associated complication of postintubation hypotension (PIH). It has not been clearly established whether the selection and dose of induction agent affect risk of PIH. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of PIH in patients receiving full-dose compared to reduced-dose induction agent for RSI in the ED. Methods This was a health system–wide, retrospective cohort study comparing incidence of PIH based on the induction medication and dose given for RSI in the ED. Patients were included if they underwent RSI from July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, were 18 years of age or older, and received etomidate or ketamine. A reduced dose was defined as a ketamine dose of 1.25 mg/kg or less and an etomidate dose of 0.2 mg/kg or less. Results A total of 909 patients were included in the final analysis, with most receiving etomidate (n = 764; 84%) and a smaller number receiving ketamine (n = 145; 16%). Patients who received ketamine had a higher mean pre-intubation shock index (full dose, 1.08; reduced dose, 1.04) than those who received etomidate (full dose, 0.89; reduced dose, 0.92) (P ≤ 0.001). Reduced doses of induction agent were observed for 107 patients receiving etomidate (14.0%) and 60 patients receiving ketamine (41.4%). Patients who received full-dose ketamine for induction had the highest rate of PIH (n = 31; 36.5%), and the difference was statistically significant compared to patients receiving reduced-dose ketamine (16.7%; P = 0.021) and full-dose etomidate (22.8%; P = 0.010). Conclusion We observed that full-dose ketamine was associated with the highest rate of PIH; however, this group had the poorest baseline hemodynamics, confounding interpretation. Our results do not support broad use of a reduced-dose induction agent.

AbstractObjectivesThis needs assessment aimed to improve understanding of flexible endoscopic intubation training and practice in emergency medicine (EM), providing insights to educators and practice leaders seeking to improve education and practices.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, mixed‐methods needs assessment of emergency physicians (EPs) incorporating focus groups and a survey. Focus groups comprised community EPs, academic EPs, and resident EPs. We analyzed focus group transcripts using grounded theory, qualitatively describing EM endoscopic intubation. The qualitative analysis shaped our survey instrument, which we deployed in cross‐sectional fashion. We report survey data with descriptive statistics.ResultsFocus groups with 13 EPs identified three themes: indications for use of endoscopic intubation, factors impacting a physician's decision to endoscopically intubate, and attaining and maintaining endoscopic intubation competency. Of 257 surveyed EPs (33% response rate), 79% had received endoscopic intubation training during residency, though 82% had performed this procedure 10 or fewer times in their career. Despite 97% acknowledging the necessity of competency, only 23% felt highly confident in their ability to perform endoscopic intubation. Participants (93%) reported scarce opportunities to perform the procedure and identified factors believed to facilitate competency acquisition and maintenance, including opportunities to perform endoscopic intubation in practice (98%), local champions (93%), and performing nasopharyngoscopy (87%).ConclusionsWhile most EPs acknowledged the importance of competency in endoscopic intubation, they reported scarce procedural opportunities and commonly expressed low confidence. Further research is needed on this topic, and we propose avenues to enhance education and practices related to endoscopic intubation. These include development of robust procedural curricula, support of local champions, and incorporating nasopharyngoscopy into EM practice.

Abstract Purpose This study uses a large national legal database to analyze characteristics of malpractice claims involving U.S. medical students. Method The Westlaw database was searched in September 2023 for malpractice cases involving medical students from January 1, 1900, through September 1, 2023. Each case was independently reviewed by 2 authors, abstracting each variable. Categorical data were summarized as frequency of occurrence (i.e., number and percentage), and continuous data were summarized with means, medians, and ranges. All authors independently reviewed the dataset to identify potential themes and codes. Results There were 65 cases that met the inclusion criteria. Reported patient outcomes were death (19, 29%), pain (25, 38%), and disability (36, 55%). The most common specialties involved were emergency medicine (16, 25%), general surgery (14, 22%), and obstetrics and gynecology (13, 20%). The most common primary alleged errors attributed to students related to medical decision-making (30, 46%), procedural complication (24, 37%), and poor communication (11, 17%). Among 23 (35%) cases reporting year of training, 1 (4%) included a second-year student, 13 (57%) included third-year students, and 9 (39%) included fourth-year students. Of the 65 lawsuits, 28 (43%) resulted in a settlement or verdict against the medical student. The total amount paid in these cases was $78,192,612, with a mean (median) of $3,007,408 ($1,050,000) per case. Of these 28 cases, 14 (50%) cited minimal or no physician supervision. Conclusions Medical malpractice claims involving medical students are rare but commonly relate to medical decision-making, procedural complication, and poor communication, with a lack of supervision being frequently cited. These results can be used to guide students and supervising physicians on how to avoid scenarios that may increase vulnerability to medical malpractice lawsuits.

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.

BACKGROUND: Promotions in academic medicine are frequently based on number of publications and leadership positions held. While prior study has established women publish less than men, many evaluations are limited to individual specialties and do not evaluate involvement with educational activities. OBJECTIVE: To compare gender differences in academic output, intramural leadership positions, and educational leadership positions of academic physicians. METHODS: The curriculum vitae and de-identified demographic data of all permanent physicians employed at a multi-site academic medical center were reviewed from April to May 2020. Multivariable logistic and Poisson regressions evaluated leadership positions and number of publications. RESULTS: Of 3,359 physicians in the demographic database, 32.3% (n = 1,087) were women and 72.5% were white (n = 2,510). Of the 3,015 physicians in the curriculum vitae database, 32% (n = 962) were women. Women were more likely (p < 0.001) to be assistant professor (54% vs. 42.7%) and less likely to be associate (18.1% vs. 20.3%) or full professor (14.6% vs. 29.1%). Women assistant professors published 22% fewer articles (ratio estimate = 0.78, p < 0.001), associate professors 18% less (coefficient = 0.82, p < 0.001), and full professors 23% less (coefficient = 0.77, p < 0.001). Fewer women were program directors for residencies (1.6% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.02) or fellowships (5.4% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.04), and held fewer division or department leadership positions (OR 0.8, 95% CI as [0.6, 1.0], p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Women physicians do not outperform men across any education, leadership, or publication category. A cultural shift is needed to redefine traditional metrics for leadership appointments if academic medicine hopes to achieve equity.