Mal-positioned nasogastric feeding tubes : are medical students safe to identify them?

OBJECTIVES: Nasogastric tube (NGT) placement is listed against Clinical Imaging in the upcoming Medical Licensing Assessment-compulsory for every graduating UK medical student from 2025. This study aims to establish the ability of medical students to correctly identify the position of an NGT on Chest X-ray (CXR) and to evaluate a learning tool to improve student outcome in this area. METHODS: Fourth-year (MB4) and fifth-year (MB5) medical students were invited to view 20 CXRs with 14 correctly sited and 6 mal-positioned NGT. MB5 students (Intervention) were exposed to an online interactive learning tool, with MB4 students kept as control. One week later, both groups of students were invited to view 20 more CXRs for NGT placement. RESULTS: Only 12 (4.8%) of 249 MB5 students and 5 (3.1%) of 161 MB4 students correctly identified all the NGTs on CXRs. The number of students misidentifying 1 or more mal-positioned NGT as "safe to feed" was 129 (51.8%) for MB5 and 76 (47.2%) for MB4 students. This improved significantly (P < .001) following exposure to the learning tool with 58% scoring all CXRs correctly, while 28% scored 1 or more mal-positioned NGT incorrectly. Students struggled to determine if the NGT tip had adequately passed into the stomach. However, they failed to identify an NG tube in the lung ("never event") in just one out of 1,108 opportunities. CONCLUSION: Medical students' ability to determine if the NGT was in the stomach remains suboptimal despite exposure to over 60 CXRs. Feeding NGT should be formally reported before use. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first attempt at quantifying graduating medical students', and by inference junior doctors', competence in safely identifying misplaced nasogastric feeding tubes. An online, experiential learning resource significantly improved their ability

Mal-positioned nasogastric feeding tubes: are medical students safe to identify them?

Objectives: Nasogastric tube (NGT) placement is listed against Clinical Imaging in the upcoming Medical Licensing Assessment – compulsory for every graduating UK medical student from 2025. This study aims to establish the ability of medical students to correctly identify the position of an NGT on Chest Xray (CXR) and to evaluate a learning tool to improve student outcome in this area. Materials and Methods: Fourth (MB4) and Fifth-year (MB5) medical students were invited to view 20 CXRs with 14 correctly sited and 6 mal-positioned NGT. MB5 students (Intervention) were exposed to an online interactive learning tool, with MB4 students kept as control. One week later, both groups of students were invited to view 20 more CXRs for NGT placement. Results: Only 12 (4.8%) of 249 MB5 students and 5 (3.1%) of 161 MB4 students correctly identified all the NGTs on CXRs. The number of students misidentifying 1 or more mal-position NGT as “safe to feed” was 129 (51.8%) for MB5 and 76 (47.2%) for MB4 students. This improved significantly (p&lt;0.001) following exposure to the learning tool with 58% scoring all CXRs correctly while 28% scored 1 or more mal-positioned NGT incorrectly. Students struggled to determine if the NGT tip had adequately passed into the stomach. However, they failed to identify an NG tube in the lung (“Never event”) in just one out of 1,108 opportunities. Conclusion: Medical students’ ability to determine if the NGT was in the stomach remains suboptimal despite exposure to over 60 CXRs. Feeding NGT should be formally reported before use. Advances in Knowledge: This is the first attempt at quantifying graduating medical students’, and by inference junior doctors’, competence in safely identifying misplaced nasogastric feeding tubes. An online, experiential learning resource significantly improved their ability

Simple changes to the reporting environment produce a large reduction in the frequency of interruptions to the reporting radiologist:an observational study

Background Interruptions are a cause of discrepancy, errors, and potential safety incidents in radiology. The sources of radiological error are multifactorial and strategies to reduce error should include measures to reduce interruptions. Purpose To evaluate the effect of simple changes in the reporting environment on the frequency of interruptions to the reporting radiologist of a hospital radiology department. Material and Methods A prospective observational study was carried out. The number and type of potentially disruptive events (PDEs) to the radiologist reporting inpatient computed tomography (CT) scans were recorded during 20 separate 1-h observation periods during both pre- and post-intervention phases. The interventions were (i) relocation of the radiologist to a private, quiet room, and (ii) initial vetting of clinician enquiries via a separate duty radiologist. Results After the intervention there was an 82% reduction in the number of frank interruptions (PDEs that require the radiologist to abandon the reporting task) from a median 6 events per hour to 1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4–6; P &lt; 0.00001). The overall number of PDEs was reduced by 56% from a median 11 events per hour to 5 (95% CI = 4.5–11: P &lt; 0.00001). Conclusion Relocation of inpatient CT reporting to a private, quiet room, coupled with vetting of clinician enquiries via the duty radiologist, resulted in a large reduction in the frequency of interruptions, a frequently cited avoidable source of radiological error.</div

Simple changes to the reporting environment produce a large reduction in the frequency of interruptions to the reporting radiologist:an observational study

Background:  Interruptions are a cause of discrepancy, errors, and potential safety incidents in radiology. The sources of radiological error are multifactorial and strategies to reduce error should include measures to reduce interruptions.  Purpose:  To evaluate the effect of simple changes in the reporting environment on the frequency of interruptions to the reporting radiologist of a hospital radiology department.  Material and Methods:  A prospective observational study was carried out. The number and type of potentially disruptive events (PDEs) to the radiologist reporting inpatient computed tomography (CT) scans were recorded during 20 separate 1-h observation periods during both pre- and post-intervention phases. The interventions were (i) relocation of the radiologist to a private, quiet room, and (ii) initial vetting of clinician enquiries via a separate duty radiologist  Results:  After the intervention there was an 82% reduction in the number of frank interruptions (PDEs that require the radiologist to abandon the reporting task) from a median 6 events per hour to 1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4–6; P < 0.00001). The overall number of PDEs was reduced by 56% from a median 11 events per hour to 5 (95% CI = 4.5–11: P < 0.00001).  Conclusion:  Relocation of inpatient CT reporting to a private, quiet room, coupled with vetting of clinician enquiries via the duty radiologist, resulted in a large reduction in the frequency of interruptions, a frequently cited avoidable source of radiological error.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: Data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population