Rieck, Katie M.

Abstract Objective: Dyad learning has been shown to be an effective tool for teaching procedural skills, but little is known about how dyad learning may impact the stress, anxiety, and cognitive load that a student experiences when learning in this manner. In this pilot study, we investigate the relationship between dyad training on stress, anxiety, cognitive load, and performance in a simulated bradycardia scenario. Methods: Forty-one fourth-year medical school trainees were randomized as dyads (n=24) or individuals (n=17) for an education session on Day 1. Reassessment occurred on Day 4 and was completed as individuals for all trainees. Primary outcomes were cognitive load (Paas scale), stress (Cognitive Appraisal Ratio), and anxiety levels (abbreviated State-Trait Anxiety Inventory). Secondary outcomes were time-based performance metrics. Results: On Day 1 we observed significant differences for change in anxiety and stress measured before and after the training scenario between groups. Individuals compared to dyads had larger mean increases in anxiety, (19.6 versus 7.6 on 80-point scale, p=0.02) and stress ratio (1.8 versus 0.9, p=0.045). On the Day 4 post-intervention assessment, no significant differences were observed between groups. Secondary outcomes were significant for shorter time to diagnosis of bradycardia (p=0.01) and time to initiation of pacing (p=0.04) in the dyad group on Day 1. On Day 4, only time to recognizing the indication for pacing was significantly shorter for individual training (Hazard ratio [HR] = 2.26, p = 0.02).Conclusions: Dyad training results in lower stress and anxiety levels with similar performance compared to individual training.

While many hospitalized patients have orders to fast in preparation for interventions, the extent to which these orders are necessary or adhere to evidence‐based durations is unknown. In this study, we analyzed the length, indication, and associated outcomes of nil per os (NPO) orders for general medicine patients at an academic institution in the United States, and compared them to the best available evidence for recommended length of NPO. Of 924 NPO orders assessed, the indicated intervention was not performed for 183 (19.8%) orders, largely due to a change in plan (75/183, 41.0%) or scheduling barriers (43/183, 23.5%). When analyzed by indication, the median duration of NPO orders ranged from 8.3 hours for kidney ultrasound to 13.9 hours for upper endoscopy. For some indications, the literature suggested NPO orders may be unnecessary. Furthermore, in indications for which NPO was deemed necessary in the literature, the duration of most NPO orders was much longer than minimally required. These results suggest the need for establishing more robust practice guidelines or institutional protocols for NPO orders.