Identifying inaccuracies on emergency medicine residency applications.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have showed a 10-30% rate of inaccuracies on applications to individual residency programs. No studies have attempted to corroborate this on a national level. Attempts by residency programs to diminish the frequency of inaccuracies on applications have not been reported. We seek to clarify the national incidence of inaccuracies on applications to emergency medicine residency programs. METHODS: This is a multi-center, single-blinded, randomized, cohort study of all applicants from LCME accredited schools to involved EM residency programs. Applications were randomly selected to investigate claims of AOA election, advanced degrees and publications. Errors were reported to applicants' deans and the NRMP. RESULTS: Nine residencies reviewed 493 applications (28.6% of all applicants who applied to any EM program). 56 applications (11.4%, 95%CI 8.6-14.2%) contained at least one error. Excluding "benign" errors, 9.8% (95% CI 7.2-12.4%), contained at least one error. 41% (95% CI 35.0-47.0%) of all publications contained an error. All AOA membership claims were verified, but 13.7% (95%CI 4.4-23.1%) of claimed advanced degrees were inaccurate. Inter-rater reliability of evaluations was good. Investigators were reluctant to notify applicants' dean's offices and the NRMP. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to date of accuracy on application for residency and the first such multi-centered trial. High rates of incorrect data were found on applications. This data will serve as a baseline for future years of the project, with emphasis on reporting inaccuracies and warning applicants of the project's goals.

Delaying shock for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: does it save lives?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest claims more than 450,000 lives annually in North America. Many communities have dedicated significant resources to provide rapid defibrillator response for patients in ventricular fibrillation. In spite of these efforts, mortality from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has not improved significantly. Emerging evidence suggests some patients in ventricular fibrillation arrest may be harmed by immediate defibrillation. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent laboratory studies have shown benefit in performing a period of chest compressions (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) prior to defibrillation in models with more than 4 minutes of induced ventricular fibrillation. During the initial 4 minutes the heart is more amenable to electrical defibrillation. Between 4-10 minutes, chest compressions create some coronary perfusion and fill the left ventricle to prepare the heart for electric shock. These findings, in conjunction with most emergency medical service response times reported to be 5-8 minutes, have prompted human investigation into a strategy of chest compression first. A recent randomized controlled trial reported a fivefold increase in survival for patients with more than 5 minutes of VF who received 3 minutes of chest compressions prior to defibrillation compared with those who had not. SUMMARY: Current guidelines call for rapid defibrillation as the most important 'link' in the 'chain of survival'. For most ventricular fibrillation patients who have professional rescuers arrive after 5-8 minutes of ventricular fibrillation, however, immediate defibrillation is likely to be ineffective. Counterintuitively, these patients may benefit from a period of chest compressions prior to being shocked.