Procedural training models among emergency medicine residency programs.

Education, medical Models, animal Simulation training

Journal

Clinical and experimental emergency medicine
ISSN: 2383-4625
Titre abrégé: Clin Exp Emerg Med
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101657493

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Historique:
received: 15 07 2020
accepted: 25 09 2020
entrez: 12 4 2021
pubmed: 13 4 2021
medline: 13 4 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Optimal training methods remain controversial for rarely performed emergency procedures. Previous research has failed to demonstrate the superiority or inferiority of live anesthetized animal models (LAA) as compared to other modalities. Most of the data on LAA use comes from military contexts; less information is available for civilian emergency medicine (EM) training. We sought to characterize the prevalence of LAA use among civilian EM residency programs and reasons for its use or discontinuation. Survey study of program directors of EM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. A 16-item questionnaire was electronically delivered to program directors, including program region, current and historical use of LAA, and attitudes regarding the optimal procedural training modalities. Of 179 survey recipients, 83 completed the survey (46.4%). Twelve programs (14.3%) currently use LAA, and 17 programs (20.5%) report previous LAA use. Reasons for discontinuing LAA use included ethical concerns, financial and logistical limitations, political pressures, and feeling that there were superior or equivalent alternative models available. Programs that currently use LAA were more likely to rank LAA as being the most preferable training modality while programs that do not currently use LAA were more likely to rank human cadavers as the most preferable modality. Despite a lack of data showing educational outcomes-driven differences between LAA and alternative training models, LAA use is declining among civilian EM residencies. Despite this, disagreement exists among programs that do and do not use LAA regarding the most optimal procedural training.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33845521
pii: ceem.20.088
doi: 10.15441/ceem.20.088
pmc: PMC8041579
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

37-42

Références

J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Mil Med. 2017 Sep;182(9):e1834-e1840
pubmed: 28885944
Med Care. 2006 Nov;44(11 Suppl 3):S21-30
pubmed: 17060830
Med Teach. 2014 Jun;36(6):463-74
pubmed: 24661014
Mil Med. 2012 Aug;177(8):907-10
pubmed: 22934368
Mil Med. 2017 Sep;182(9):e1824-e1833
pubmed: 28885943
Can J Surg. 2015 Jun;58(3 Suppl 3):S125-34
pubmed: 26100772
J Emerg Med. 2004 Apr;26(3):361-8
pubmed: 15028345
Surgery. 2016 Oct;160(4):997-1007
pubmed: 27506866
Restor Dent Endod. 2017 May;42(2):152-155
pubmed: 28503482
Acad Emerg Med. 2002 Jun;9(6):575-86
pubmed: 12045070
West J Emerg Med. 2017 Jan;18(1):8-11
pubmed: 28116000
J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Aug;15(8):591-9
pubmed: 10940152

Auteurs

Leslie Bilello (L)

Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Andrew Ketterer (A)

Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Shaked Yarza (S)

Department of Emergency Medicine, Soroka Medical Center, Beersheba, Israel.

David Chiu (D)

Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Carlo Rosen (C)

Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Classifications MeSH