Determining procedures for simulation-based training in radiology: a nationwide needs assessment

Objectives: New training modalities such as simulation are widely accepted in radiology; however, development of effective simulation-based training programs is challenging. They are often unstructured and based on convenience or coincidence. The study objective was to perform a nationwide needs assessment to identify and prioritize technical procedures that should be included in a simulation-based curriculum. Methods: A needs assessment using the Delphi method was completed among 91 key leaders in radiology. Round 1 identified technical procedures that radiologists should learn. Round 2 explored frequency of procedure, number of radiologists performing the procedure, risk and/or discomfort for patients, and feasibility for simulation. Round 3 was elimination and prioritization of procedures. Results: Response rates were 67 %, 70 % and 66 %, respectively. In Round 1, 22 technical procedures were included. Round 2 resulted in pre-prioritization of procedures. In round 3, 13 procedures were included in the final prioritized list. The three highly prioritized procedures were ultrasound-guided (US) histological biopsy and fine-needle aspiration, US-guided needle puncture and catheter drainage, and basic abdominal ultrasound. Conclusion: A needs assessment identified and prioritized 13 technical procedures to include in a simulation-based curriculum. The list may be used as guide for development of training programs. Key Points: • Simulation-based training can supplement training on patients in radiology.• Development of simulation-based training should follow a structured approach.• The CAMES Needs Assessment Formula explores needs for simulation training.• A national Delphi study identified and prioritized procedures suitable for simulation training.• The prioritized list serves as guide for development of courses in radiology.</p

Effect of intravenous corticosteroids on death within 14 days in 10008 adults with clinically significant head injury (MRC CRASH trial): randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids have been used to treat head injuries for more than 30 years. In 1997, findings of a systematic review suggested that these drugs reduce risk of death by 1-2%. The CRASH trial--a multicentre international collaboration--aimed to confirm or refute such an effect by recruiting 20000 patients. In May, 2004, the data monitoring committee disclosed the unmasked results to the steering committee, which stopped recruitment. METHODS: 10008 adults with head injury and a Glasgow coma score (GCS) of 14 or less within 8 h of injury were randomly allocated 48 h infusion of corticosteroids (methylprednisolone) or placebo. Primary outcomes were death within 2 weeks of injury and death or disability at 6 months. Prespecified subgroup analyses were based on injury severity (GCS) at randomisation and on time from injury to randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. Effects on outcomes within 2 weeks of randomisation are presented in this report. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN74459797. FINDINGS: Compared with placebo, the risk of death from all causes within 2 weeks was higher in the group allocated corticosteroids (1052 [21.1%] vs 893 [17.9%] deaths; relative risk 1.18 [95% CI 1.09-1.27]; p=0.0001). The relative increase in deaths due to corticosteroids did not differ by injury severity (p=0.22) or time since injury (p=0.05). INTERPRETATION: Our results show there is no reduction in mortality with methylprednisolone in the 2 weeks after head injury. The cause of the rise in risk of death within 2 weeks is unclear