Comparison of outcomes of two skills-teaching methods on lay-rescuers' acquisition of infant basic life support skills.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine if lay-rescuers' acquisition of infant basic life support (BLS) skills would be better when skills teaching consisted of videotaping practice and providing feedback on performances, compared to conventional skills-teaching and feedback methods. METHODS: This pilot-exploratory, single-blind, prospective, controlled, randomized study was conducted on November 12, 2007, at the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. The population under study consisted of all first-year medical students enrolled in the 2007-2008 year. BLS training is part of their mandatory introductory course in emergency medicine. Twenty-three students with previous BLS training were excluded. The remaining 71 were randomized into four and then two groups, with final allocation to an intervention and control group of 18 and 16 students, respectively. All the students participated in infant BLS classroom teaching. Those in the intervention group practiced skills acquisition independently, and four were videotaped while practicing. Tapes were reviewed by the group and feedback was provided. Controls practiced using conventional teaching and feedback methods. After 3 hours, all subjects were videotaped performing an unassisted, lone-rescuer, infant BLS resuscitation scenario. A skills assessment tool was developed. It consisted of 25 checklist items, grouped into four sections: 6 points for "categories" (with specific actions in six categories), 14 points for "scoring" (of accuracy of performance of each action), 4 points for "sequence" (of actions within a category), and 1 point for "order" of resuscitation (complete and well-sequenced categories). Two blinded expert raters were given a workshop on the use of the scoring tool. They further refined it to increase scoring consistency. The main outcome of the study was defined as evidence of better skills acquisition in overall skills in the four sections and in the specific skills sets for actions in any individual category. Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Means and mean percentages were greater in the intervention group in all four sections compared to controls: categories (5.72 [95.33%] and 4.69 [92.66%]), scoring (10.57 [75.50%] and 7.41 [43.59%]), sequence (2.28 [57.00%] and 1.66 [41.50%]), and order of resuscitation (0.96 [96.00%] and 0.19 [19.00%]). The means and mean percentages of the actions (skill sets) in the intervention group were also larger than those of controls in five out of six categories: assessing responsiveness (1.69 [84.50%] and 1.13 [56.50%]), breathing technique (1.69 [93.00%] and 1.13 [47.20%]), chest compression technique (3.19 [77.50%] and 1.84 [46.00%]), activating emergency medical services (EMS) (3.00 [100.00%] and 2.81 [84.50%]), and resuming cardiopulmonary resuscitation (0.97 [97.00%] and 0.47 [47.00%]). These results demonstrate better performance in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of videotaped practice and feedback for the acquisition of overall infant BLS skills and of specific skill sets is effective. Observation and participation in the feedback and assessment of nonexperts attempting infant BLS skills appeared to improve the ability of this group of students to perform the task.

Introducing a nurse practitioner into an urban Canadian emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the emergency care provided by a nurse practitioner (NP) with that provided by emergency physicians (EPs), to identify emergency department (ED) patients appropriate for autonomous NP practice and to acquire data to facilitate the development of the clinical scope of practice recommendations for ED practice for NPs. METHODS: Using a comprehensive 3-part process, we selected and hired the best NP from 12 applicants. The NP was oriented to the operations of our free-standing community ED and incorporated in the care team, working in real time with EP preceptors during a 6-month, prospective clinical assessment comparing NP care with EP care. ED preceptors reviewed every case in real time with the NP and completed an explicit evaluation form to determine whether NP assessment, investigation, treatment and disposition were "all equivalent to emergency physician care" (AEEPC) or whether they differed. The proportion of AEEPC interactions was determined for 23 patient presentation categories. Our a priori assumption was that a patient presentation category might be suitable for autonomous NP practice if 50% of NP encounters in that category were rated as AEEPC. Descriptive data were presented for patient case mix, teaching domains and time criteria. RESULTS: Eighty-three NP shifts and 711 patient encounters were evaluated by 21 EP preceptors. The NP saw a median of 8 patients per shift. In 43% of encounters, NP care was AEEPC. Highest AEEPC rates were found in the patient follow-up categories general follow-up (55.4%), diagnostic imaging (91.7%) and microbiology laboratory results (87.6%). NP scores over 50% were also seen for lacerations (63.6%) and isolated sore throats (53%). With teaching, NP performance improved over time. CONCLUSION: With the exception of follow up-related complaints, simple lacerations and isolated sore throats, NP care differed substantially from EP care. Although NPs with extensive emergency experience and training might ultimately be able to function as autonomous ED care providers, Canadian EDs currently developing job descriptions for emergency NPs should focus on a model of collaborative practice with EPs.