Thanks to EB Medicine, “Emergency Medicine Practice” articles from 2007 and earlier are now free! This series is a well-written and practical evidence-based review resource for EM physicians. It’s a great place to start reading about bread-and-butter EM content, especially for medical students and junior residents. There haven’t been too much change in the past 3 years on many of the topics.
- Who will be in the audience?
- How can I make my talk more worthwhile to audience members, beyond their just reading the material/handout/articles on their own?
- Am I giving a talk before or after Dr. Amal Mattu? If so, just be resigned to being second-best.
This education article Sim Healthcare is a head-to-head comparison between video laryngoscopy (VL) versus direct laryngoscopy (DL) in a difficult airway simulation model. In this prospective, convenience sample of EM attendings and residents who were all novice operators of VL, the subjects were asked intubate 3 types of mannequin scenarios using a Macintosh curve laryngoscope for DL and a Glidescope for VL.
I am constantly surprised by medical student and resident comments that they rarely receive feedback. In contrast, seemingly on every shift, I hear faculty giving little nuggets of feedback – during the oral presentation, during the resuscitation, after a difficult interaction, etc. There must be some disconnect.
This multi-institutional, survey-based, observational study at 17 EM residency programs asked attending physicians and residents about feedback in the ED. The primary outcome measure was overall satisfaction with feedback.
The response rate was 71% for attendings (373/525) and 60% for residents (356/596). Side note: Survey studies are generally inconclusive if response rates are
There was a statistically significant difference between the feedback satisfaction scores (on scale of 1-10 with 10 being highest satisfaction).
- Attending physicians: 5.97
- Resident physicians: 5.29
Furthermore, when evaluating the quality of different aspects of feedback delivery, there were statistically significant differences in the satisfaction ratings between the attendings and residents. Overall, attendings felt more satisfied with feedback delivery on various topics than residents were.
- Quality of positive feedback (50% attendings, 36% residents)
- ” of constructive feedback (29% attendings, 22% residents)
- ” of feedback re: procedural skills (48% attendings, 34% residents)
- ” of documentation (36% attendings, 28% residents)
- ” of ED flow management (29% attendings, 21% residents)
- ” of evidence-based decision making (28% attendings, 18% residents)
What is more interesting to me is the discrepancy between what the attendings and residents perceived in frequency of feedback. Specifically, 42% of attendings stated that feedback delivery was being done on every shift. Contrast this to only 7% of residents who felt the same. Why the disconnect? Is it purely misperception?
In re-reading this article, I wonder how this question was phrased though. Was it indeed perception or fact?
Let’s say there are usually 5 residents per attending shift, and the attending gives feedback every shift to at least 1 person. When surveyed, the attending would answer – “Yes, I give daily feedback”. In contrast, because there are multiple learners, residents may not have received daily feedback. By law of averages, residents would have received feedback every 5 shifts.
The data showing that 42% of attendings and 7% of residents were involved in feedback delivery every shift may actually be true (rather than pure perception). This illustrates the trickiness of designing and writing surveys.
We should be working to improve positive and constructive feedback delivery in the Emergency Department, despite the various obstacles.
Yarris L, et al. Attending and resident satisfaction with feedback in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2009; 16:S76–S8.
Also see previous post on Failing at Feedback in Medical Education.
This is exemplified in a recent multicenter study, which addresses whether attendance at weekly residency conferences correlates with a better in-service training examination (ITE) score. The ITE score was used as an outcome measure, because it correlates with the resident’s likelihood for passing the official ABEM Board Exams. Both tests draw from questions in the Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine.
On Feb 24, 2010, every residency applicant will have a brief moment of panic as their rank list is submitted and officially certified.
Next week, I’ll be joining a group podcast with Dr. Rob Rogers (Maryland) and Dr. Dave Manthey (Wake Forest) for the next installment of EMRAcast. This new podcast series was created by Rob for EMRA for the specific purpose of providing advice to medical students. I still find it fascinating how much you can get done virtually. We’ll all be using Skype from our respective offices and recording our conversation.
It’s a busy day in the Emergency Department and there are 5 new patients to be seen. The waiting room is overflowing. As the attending, you are getting barraged with a million questions to answer and problems to fix.
There is also a case of a full-thickness burn patient going to the OR in the next few minutes. She’d be a perfect teaching case for the residents.
Should I have the residents go see the new patients, or should I pull them all aside to show them the physical findings and teach about burns for 5-10 minutes?