SOAP-V: Introducing a method to empower medical students to be change agents in bending the cost curve.

Medical students must learn how to practice high-value, cost-conscious care. By modifying the traditional SOAP (Subjective-Objective-Assessment-Plan) presentation to include a discussion of value (SOAP-V), we developed a cognitive forcing function designed to promote discussion of high-value, cost-conscious care during patient delivery. The SOAP-V model prompts the student to consider (1) the evidence that supports a test or treatment, (2) the patient's preferences and values, and (3) the financial cost of a test or treatment compared to alternatives. Students report their findings to their teams during patient care rounds. This tool has been successfully used at 3 medical schools. Preliminary results find that students who have been trained in SOAP-V feel more empowered to address the economic healthcare crisis, are more comfortable in initiating discussions about value, and are more likely to consider potential costs to the healthcare system.

Teaching Physicians Procedural Skills at a National Professional Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Practicing physicians often wish to improve their procedural skills but have limited educational opportunities to do so. DESCRIPTION: To summarize the effects of two procedural workshops on participants' confidence, proficiency, and practice patterns. EVALUATION: Following completion of a skin biopsy or arthrocentesis workshop, participants completed a post-course and an 8-month follow up evaluation. Recipients of this training rated it highly and reported that following training they performed more procedures, referred less, and noted an increase in their confidence that was still evident eight months after the workshop. CONCLUSION: Skin biopsy and arthrocentesis/joint injection skills can be taught to practicing physicians in a workshop setting at national professional meetings.

Training and competency evaluation for interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiograms: recommendations from the American College of Physicians.

This paper is part 1 of a 2-part series on interpretation of 12-lead resting electrocardiograms (ECGs). Part 1 is a position paper that presents recommendations for initial competency, competency assessment, and maintenance of competency on ECG interpretation, as well as recommendations for the role of computer-assisted ECG interpretation. Part 2 is a systematic review of detailed supporting evidence for the recommendations. Despite several earlier consensus-based recommendations on ECG interpretation, substantive evidence on the training needed to obtain and maintain ECG interpretation skills is not available. Some studies show that noncardiologist physicians have more ECG interpretation errors than do cardiologists, but the rate of adverse patient outcomes from ECG interpretation errors is low. Computers may decrease the time needed to interpret ECGs and can reduce ECG interpretation errors. However, they have shown less accuracy than physician interpreters and must be relied on only as an adjunct interpretation tool for a trained provider. Interpretation of ECGs varies greatly, even among expert electrocardiographers. Noncardiologists seem to be more influenced by patient history in interpreting ECGs than are cardiologists. Cardiologists also perform better than other specialists on standardized ECG examinations when minimal patient history is provided. Pending more definitive research, residency training in internal medicine with Advanced Cardiac Life Support instruction should continue to be sufficient for bedside interpretation of resting 12-lead ECGs in routine and emergency situations. Additional experience or training in ECG interpretation when the patient's clinical condition is unknown may be useful but requires further study.

Competency in interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiograms: a summary and appraisal of published evidence.

BACKGROUND: There have been many proposals for objective standards designed to optimize training, testing, and maintaining competency in interpretation of electrocardiograms (ECGs). However, most of these recommendations are consensus based and are not derived from clinical trials that include patient outcomes. PURPOSE: To critically review the available data on training, accuracy, and outcomes of computer and physician interpretation of 12-lead resting ECGs. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles were retrieved by searching MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (1974 to 2002), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1975-2002). The references in articles selected for analysis were also reviewed for relevance. STUDY SELECTION: All articles on training, accuracy, and outcomes of ECG interpretations were analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION: Study design and results were summarized in evidence tables. Information on physician interpretation compared to a "gold standard," typically a consensus panel of expert electrocardiographers, was extracted. The clinical context of and outcomes related to the ECG interpretation were obtained whenever possible. DATA SYNTHESIS: Physicians of all specialties and levels of training, as well as computer software for interpreting ECGs, frequently made errors in interpreting ECGs when compared to expert electrocardiographers. There was also substantial disagreement on interpretations among cardiologists. Adverse patient outcomes occurred infrequently when ECGs were incorrectly interpreted. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence-based minimum number of ECG interpretations that is ideal for attaining or maintaining competency in ECG interpretation skills. Further research is needed to clarify the optimal way to build and maintain ECG interpretation skills based on patient outcomes.