ACGME Case Log Reminder Does Not Improve Resident Accuracy in Logging Cases.

To assess competency of residents prior to graduation, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) maintains a case log system, where residents self-report cases they perform. This mechanism results in underreporting of resident involvement in patient care. To determine if an intraoperative case log reminder would increase the frequency of ACGME case logging amongst anesthesiology residents. An intraoperative ACGME case log reminder was implemented on March 13, 2019. The authors collected data for all 53 PGY2-4 anesthesiology residents at the authors' institution from July 14, 2018 to July 16, 2019 from the electronic medical record and ACGME system to calculate the proportion of cases logged and the "lag time" between case occurrence and logging. Data was analyzed for all residents, classes, and individuals. A total of 16,342 anesthetics were performed, and a total of 11,713 cases were logged. The reminder did not improve overall logging rates. Case-logging rates amongst PGY2 residents remained unchanged and declined for PGY3 and PGY4 residents. The lag time between case occurrence and logging increased. An automatic reminder did not improve logging frequency. This may be because residents are unable to log cases intraoperatively in many instances, or they may not feel as though they have participated enough in a case to log it. Additionally, senior residents may log cases less frequently once they have met required case minimums. An automatic case-logging system that transmits resident information directly to the ACGME may be the best way to increase logging accuracy.

Comparison of Two Learning Modalities on Continuing Medical Education Consumption and Knowledge Acquisition: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Research has demonstrated that active learning, spaced education, and retrieval-based practice can improve knowledge acquisition, knowledge retention, and clinical practice. Furthermore, learners prefer active learning modalities that use the testing effect and spaced education as compared to passive, lecture-based education. However, most research has been performed with students and residents rather than practicing physicians. To date, most continuing medical education (CME) opportunities use passive learning models, such as face-to-face meetings with lecture-style didactic sessions. The aim of this study was to investigate learner engagement, as measured by the number of CME credits earned, via two different learning modalities. METHODS: Diplomates of the American Board of Anesthesiology or candidates for certification through the board (referred to colloquially and for the remainder of this article as board certified or board eligible) were provided an opportunity to enroll in the study. Participants were recruited via email. Once enrolled, they were randomized into 1 of 2 groups: web-app-based CME (Webapp CME) or an online interface that replicated online CME (Online CME). The intervention period lasted 6 weeks and participants were provided educational content using one of the two approaches. As an incentive for participation, CME credits could be earned (without cost) during the intervention period and for completion of the postintervention quiz. The same number of CME credits was available to each group. RESULTS: Fifty-four participants enrolled and completed the study. The mean number of CME credits earned was greater in the Webapp group compared to the Online group (12.3 ± 1.4 h versus 4.5 ± 2.3 h, P < .001). Concerning knowledge acquisition, the difference in postintervention quiz scores was not statistically significant (Webapp 70% ± 7% versus Online 60% ± 11%, P = .11). However, only 29% of the Online group completed the postintervention quiz, versus 77% of the Webapp group (P < .001), possibly showing a greater rate of learner engagement in the Webapp group. CONCLUSION: In this prospective, randomized controlled pilot study, we demonstrated that daily spaced education delivered to learners through a smartphone web app resulted in greater learner engagement than an online modality. Further research with larger trials is needed to confirm our findings.

Visualization of aggregate perioperative data improves anesthesia case planning: A randomized, cross-over trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: A challenge in reducing unwanted care variation is effectively managing the wide variety of performed surgical procedures. While an organization may perform thousands of types of cases, privacy and logistical constraints prevent review of previous cases to learn about prior practices. To bridge this gap, we developed a system for extracting key data from anesthesia records. Our objective was to determine whether usage of the system would improve case planning performance for anesthesia residents. DESIGN: Randomized, cross-over trial. SETTING: Vanderbilt University Medical Center. MEASUREMENTS: We developed a web-based, data visualization tool for reviewing de-identified anesthesia records. First year anesthesia residents were recruited and performed simulated case planning tasks (e.g., selecting an anesthetic type) across six case scenarios using a randomized, cross-over design after a baseline assessment. An algorithm scored case planning performance based on care components selected by residents occurring frequently among prior anesthetics, which was scored on a 0-4 point scale. Linear mixed effects regression quantified the tool effect on the average performance score, adjusting for potential confounders. MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 516 survey questionnaires from 19 residents. The mean performance score was 2.55 ± SD 0.32. Utilization of the tool was associated with an average score improvement of 0.120 points (95% CI 0.060 to 0.179; p < 0.001). Additionally, a 0.055 point improvement due to the "learning effect" was observed from each assessment to the next (95% CI 0.034 to 0.077; p < 0.001). Assessment score was also significantly associated with specific case scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the feasibility of developing of a clinical data visualization system that aggregated key anesthetic information and found that the usage of tools modestly improved residents' performance in simulated case planning.

The Risk of Oxygen during Cardiac Surgery (ROCS) trial: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists administer excess supplemental oxygen (hyper-oxygenation) to patients during surgery to avoid hypoxia. Hyper-oxygenation, however, may increase the generation of reactive oxygen species and cause oxidative damage. In cardiac surgery, increased oxidative damage has been associated with postoperative kidney and brain injury. We hypothesize that maintenance of normoxia during cardiac surgery (physiologic oxygenation) decreases kidney injury and oxidative damage compared to hyper-oxygenation. METHODS/DESIGN: The Risk of Oxygen during Cardiac Surgery (ROCS) trial will randomly assign 200 cardiac surgery patients to receive physiologic oxygenation, defined as the lowest fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) necessary to maintain an arterial hemoglobin saturation of 95 to 97%, or hyper-oxygenation (FIO2 = 1.0) during surgery. The primary clinical endpoint is serum creatinine change from baseline to postoperative day 2, and the primary mechanism endpoint is change in plasma concentrations of F2-isoprostanes and isofurans. Secondary endpoints include superoxide production, clinical delirium, myocardial injury, and length of stay. An endothelial function substudy will examine the effects of oxygen treatment and oxidative stress on endothelial function, measured using flow mediated dilation, peripheral arterial tonometry, and wire tension myography of epicardial fat arterioles. DISCUSSION: The ROCS trial will test the hypothesis that intraoperative physiologic oxygenation decreases oxidative damage and organ injury compared to hyper-oxygenation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02361944 . Registered on the 30th of January 2015.

A method for automating 3-dimensional proximal isovelocity surface area measurement.

OBJECTIVE: The proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) is used for the echocardiographic quantification of effective orifice areas in valvular stenosis and regurgitation. Typically measured in 2 dimensions, the PISA relies on the geometric assumption that the shape of flow convergence is a hemisphere and that the orifice is a single circular point. Neither assumption is true. The objective was to develop a method for automating the measurement of the PISA in 3 dimensions and to illuminate the actual shape of the flow convergence pattern and how it changes over time. DESIGN: Retrospective, single-case study. SETTING: Major urban hospital. PARTICIPANTS: This study was based on a single patient undergoing mitral valve replacement. INTERVENTIONS: No additional interventions were performed in the patient. RESULTS: The effective orifice areas calculated from the serial hemispheric, hemi-elliptic, and 3-dimensional (3D) PISAs during diastole were compared with the corresponding planimetric anatomic mitral orifice area. The effective orifice areas based on the manual and automated measurements of 3D PISAs more closely approximated the anatomic orifice than the effective orifice areas calculated using hemispheric or hemi-elliptic PISAs. CONCLUSIONS: An automated analysis of 3D color Doppler data is feasible and allows a direct and accurate measurement of a 3D PISA, thus avoiding reliance on simplistic geometric assumptions. The dynamic aspect of cardiac orifices also must be considered in orifice analysis.

Plagiarism in residency application essays.

BACKGROUND: Anecdotal reports suggest that some residency application essays contain plagiarized content. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of plagiarism in a large cohort of residency application essays. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 4975 application essays submitted to residency programs at a single large academic medical center between 1 September 2005 and 22 March 2007. MEASUREMENTS: Specialized software was used to compare residency application essays with a database of Internet pages, published works, and previously submitted essays and the percentage of the submission matching another source was calculated. A match of more than 10% to an existing work was defined as evidence of plagiarism. RESULTS: Evidence of plagiarism was found in 5.2% (95% CI, 4.6% to 5.9%) of essays. The essays of non-U.S. citizens were more likely to demonstrate evidence of plagiarism. Other characteristics associated with the prevalence of plagiarism included medical school location outside the United States and Canada; previous residency or fellowship; lack of research experience, volunteer experience, or publications; a low United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score; and non-membership in the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society. LIMITATIONS: The software database is probably incomplete, the 10%-match threshold for defining plagiarism has not been statistically validated, and the study was confined to applicants to 1 institution. Evidence of matching content in an essay cannot be used to infer the applicant's intent and is not sensitive to variations in the cultural context of copying in some societies. CONCLUSION: Evidence of plagiarism in residency application essays is more common in international applicants but was found in those by applicants to all specialty programs, from all medical school types, and even among applicants with significant academic honors. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: No external funding.