Standardized Direct Observation Assessment Tool: Using a Training Video.

BACKGROUND: We developed a DVD training tool to educate physicians evaluating emergency residents on accurate Standardized Direct Observation Assessment Tool (SDOT) application. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to assess whether this training video improved attendings\u27 and senior residents\u27 SDOT use. METHODS: Participants voluntarily completed SDOT evaluations based on a scripted test video. A DVD with positive and negative scenarios of proper SDOT use was viewed. It included education on appropriate recording of 26 behaviors. The test scenario was viewed again and follow-up SDOTs submitted. Performances by attendings and residents on the pre- and post-test SDOTs were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-six attendings and 26 senior residents participated. Prior SDOT experience was noted for 8 attendings and 11 residents. For 20 anchors, participants recorded observed behaviors with statistically significant difference on one each of the pretest (no. 20; p = 0.034) and post-test (no. 14; p = 0.041) SDOTs. On global competency assessments, pretest medical knowledge (p = 0.016) differed significantly between groups. The training intervention changed one anchor (no. 5; p = 0.035) and one global assessment (systems-based practice; p = 0.031) more negatively for residents. Recording SDOTs with exact agreement occurred 48.73% for attendings pretest and 54.41% post-test; resident scores were 45.86% and 49.55%, respectively. DVD exposure slightly raised attending scores (p = 0.289) and significantly lowered resident scores (p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to an independently developed SDOT training video tended to raise attending scores, though without significance, while at the same time lowered senior resident scores statistically significantly. Emergency attendings\u27 and senior residents\u27 SDOT scoring rarely differed with significance; about half of anchor behaviors were recorded with exact agreement. This suggests senior residents, with appropriate education, may participate in SDOT assessment

Comparison of Airway Intubation Devices When Using a Biohazard Suit: A Feasibility Study

OBJECTIVES: We set out to compare emergency medicine residents\u27 intubating times and success rates for direct laryngoscopy (DL), GlideScope-assisted intubation (GS), and the Supraglottic Airway Laryngopharyngeal Tube (SALT) airway with and without biohazard gear. METHODS: Each resident passed through 2 sets of 3 testing stations (DL, GS, SALT) in succession, intubating Laerdal mannequin heads with the 3 modalities after randomization to start with or without biohazard gear. RESULTS: Thirty-seven residents participated, and 27 were male (73%); 14 (37.8%) had prior experience intubating in biohazard suits. There was a statistically significant difference in those who had prior intubation experience between DL (37, 100%), GS (32, 86.5%), and SALT (12, 32.4%) (P \u3c .001) and in median time to intubation (48 seconds, no suit; 57 seconds, with suits) (P = .03). There was no statistically significant difference between the overall times to intubate for the 3 devices. First-pass success was highest for DL (91.2%, no suit; 83.7%, suit) followed by GS (89%, no suit; 78.3%, suit) and SALT (51%, no suit; 67.6%, suit). CONCLUSION: A minority of participants had prior experience intubating in biohazard suits. Use of biohazard suits extends time to successful intubation. There was no difference in time to intubation for the 3 devices, but first-pass success was highest for DL (with or without biohazard gear)