Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T00:54:47.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of emergency medicine residents on a novel practice examination using visual stimuli

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Danielle Blouin ,
Luigi Eugene Dagnone  and
Robert McGraw
Danielle Blouin*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
Luigi Eugene Dagnone
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
Robert McGraw
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
*
Emergency Department, Queen's University, 76 Stuart St., Kingston ON K7L 2V7

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objectives:

In 2004, the format of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada certification exam in Emergency Medicine was modified to include an audiovisual session. Residents' performance on such stimuli is unknown. This study aims to determine the performance of Emergency Medicine postgraduate year 5 (PGY-5) on a novel practice examination using visual stimuli, in an effort to guide residents' preparatory study, and to help educators focus the teaching related to visual stimuli.

Methods:

In this prospective observational study, 30 PGY-5 residents from 12 Emergency Medicine programs across Canada participated in a practice examination in which they had to answer 133 questions related to 80 visual stimuli. The stimuli included electrocardiograms, medical imaging and clinical photographs. Three experienced faculty provided “reference standard” answers for the visual stimuli. For analysis purpose, stimuli were classified into 9 clinical domains, outlined in The Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine.

Results:

Insufficient question numbers in 3 domains prevented reliable inferences. Correct answers were given for 65% of remaining questions, with the following domain distribution: 69% respiratory, 64% trauma, 73% cardiovascular, 62% head–eyes–ears–nose–throat (HEENT), 63% musculoskeletal and 69% cutaneous. Seventy-four percent of ECGs, 64% of imaging, and 62% of photograph-related questions were answered correctly. Incorrect answers were related to a lack of knowledge as well as imprecise or incomplete responses.

Conclusions:

PGY-5 subjects scored lowest in the HEENT and musculoskeletal domains. Medical educators should emphasize these domains in their teaching, and insist on precision and completeness of answers.

Keywords

postgraduate educationvisual stimulusteaching
Type
Education • Éducation
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 21 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2006

References

1.Hockberger, RS, Binder, LS, Graber, MA, et al. The model of the clinical practice of emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 37(6):745–70.Google Scholar
2.Brunswick, JE, Ilkhanipour, K, Seaberg, DC, et al. Radiographic interpretation in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med 1996;14(4):346–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Espinosa, JA, Nolan, TW. Reducing errors made by emergency physicians in interpreting radiographs: longitudinal study. BMJ 2000;320:737–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Warren, JS, Lara, K, Connor, PD, et al. Correlation of emergency department radiographs: results ofa quality assurance review in an urban community hospital setting. J Am Board Fam Pract 1993;6(3):255–9.Google Scholar
5.Mayhue, FE, Rust, DD, Aldag, JC, et al. Accuracy of interpretations of emergency department radiographs: effect of confidence levels [review]. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18(8):826–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Eng, J, Mysko, WK, Weller, GE, et al. Interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175(5):1233–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Walsh-Kelly, CM, Melzer-Lange, MD, Hennes, HM, et al. Clinical impact of radiograph misinterpretation in a pediatric ED and the effect of physician training level. Am J Emerg Med 1995;13(3):262–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Lufkin, KC, Smith, SW, Matticks, CA, et al. Radiologists’ review of radiographs interpreted confidently by emergency physicians infrequently leads to changes in patient management [published erratum appears in Ann Emerg Med 1998;32(3 pt 1):390;PMID: 9758569]. AnnEmerg Med 1998; 31(2):202–7.Google Scholar
9.Ilkhanipour, K, Seaberg, DC. Radiographic interpretation by emergency medicine residents. Acad Emerg Med 1995;2(12):1113–4.Google Scholar
10.Zappa, M, Smith, M, Li, S. How well do emergency physicians interpret ECGs? [abstract]. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20(4):463.Google Scholar
11.Kuhn, M, Morgan, MT, Hoffman, JR. Quality assurance in the emergency department: evaluation of the ECG review process. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21(1):10–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Westdrop, EJ, Gratton, MC, Watson, WA. Emergency department interpretation of electrocardiograms. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21(5):541–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Todd, KH, Hoffman, JR, Morgan, MT. Effect of cardiologist ECG review on emergency department practice. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27(1):16–21.Google Scholar
14.Snoey, ER, Housset, B, Guyon, P, et al. Analysis of emergency department interpretation of electrocardiograms. J Accid Emerg Med 1994;11(3):149–53.Google Scholar
15.Pope, JH, Aufderheide, TP, Ruthazer, R, et al. Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2000;342(16):1163–70.Google Scholar
16.Brady, WJ, Perron, A, Ullman, E.Errors in emergency physician interpretation of ST-segment elevation in emergency department chest pain patients. Acad Emerg Med 2000; 7(11):1256–1260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.McCallion, WA, Templeton, PA, McKinney, LA, et al. Missed myocardial ischaemia in the accident & emergency department: E.C.G. a need for audit? Arch Emerg Med 1991;8(2):102–7.Google Scholar
18.Brady, WJ, Perron, AD, Chan, T. Electrocardiographic ST-segment elevation: correct identification of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and non-AMI syndromes by emergency physicians. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8(4):349–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Herbert, ME, Votey, SR, Morgan, MT, et al. Failure to agree on the electrocardiographic diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27(1):35–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Isenhour, JL, Craig, S, Gibbs, M, et al. Wide-complex tachycardia: continued evaluation of diagnostic criteria. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7(7):769–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed