Assessment of the comparative agreement between chest radiographs and CT scans in intensive care units.

PURPOSE: Chest radiographs in critically ill patients can be difficult to interpret due to technical and clinical factors. We sought to determine the agreement of chest radiographs and CT scans, and the inter-observer variation of chest radiograph interpretation, in intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Chest radiographs and corresponding thoracic computerised tomography (CT) scans (as reference standard) were collected from 45 ICU patients. All radiographs were analysed by 20 doctors (radiology consultants, radiology trainees, ICU consultants, ICU trainees) from 4 different centres, blinded to CT results. Specificity/sensitivity were determined for pleural effusion, lobar collapse and consolidation/atelectasis. Separately, Fleiss' kappa for multiple raters was used to determine inter-observer variation for chest radiographs. RESULTS: The median sensitivity and specificity of chest radiographs for detecting abnormalities seen on CTs scans were 43.2% and 85.9% respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity for pleural effusion was significantly higher among radiology consultants but no specialty/experience distinctions were observed for specificity. Median inter-observer kappa coefficient among assessors was 0.295 ("fair"). CONCLUSIONS: Chest radiographs commonly miss important radiological features in critically ill patients. Inter-observer agreement in chest radiograph interpretation is only "fair". Consultant radiologists are least likely to miss thoracic radiological abnormalities. The consequences of misdiagnosis by chest radiographs remain to be determined.

Newborn Resuscitation Skills in Health Care Providers at a Zambian Tertiary Center, and Comparison to World Health Organization Standards.

BACKGROUND: Birth asphyxia is a leading cause of early neonatal death. In 2013, 32% of neonatal deaths in Zambia were attributable to birth asphyxia and trauma. Basic, timely interventions are key to improving outcomes. However, data from the World Health Organization suggest that resuscitation is often not initiated, or is conducted suboptimally. Currently, there are little data on the quality of newborn resuscitation in the context of a tertiary center in a lower-middle income country. We aimed to measure the competencies of clinical practitioners responsible for newborn resuscitation. METHODS: This observational study was conducted over 5 months in Zambia. Health care professionals were recruited from anesthesia, pediatrics, and midwifery. Newborn skills and knowledge were examined using the following: (1) multiple-choice questions; (2) a ventilation skills test; and (3) 2 low-medium fidelity simulation scenarios. Participant demographics including previous resuscitation training and a self-efficacy rating score were noted. The primary outcome examined performance scores in a simulated scenario, which assessed the care of a newborn that failed to respond to basic interventions. Secondary outcome measures included apnea times after delivery and performance in the other assessments. RESULTS: Seventy-eight participants were enrolled into the study (13 physician anesthesiology residents, 13 pediatric residents, and 52 midwives). A significant difference in interprofessional performance was observed when examining checklist scores for the unresponsive newborn simulated scenario (P = .006). The median (quartiles) checklist score (out of 18) was 14.0 (13.0-14.75) for the anesthesiologists, 11.0 (8.5-12.3) for the pediatricians, and 10.8 (8.3-13.9) for the midwives. A score of 14 or more was required to pass the scenario. There was no significant difference in performance between participants with and without previous newborn resuscitation training (P = .246). The median (quartiles) apnea time after delivery was significantly different between all groups (P = .01) with anesthetic and pediatric residents performing similarly, 61 (37-97) and 63 (42.5-97.5) seconds, respectively. The midwifery participants displayed a significantly longer apnea time, 93.5 (66.3-129) seconds. Self-efficacy rating scores displayed no correlation between confidence level and the primary outcome, Spearman coefficient 0.06 (P = .55). CONCLUSIONS: Newborn resuscitation skills among health care professionals are varied. Midwives lead the majority of deliveries with anesthesiologists and pediatricians only being present at operative or high-risk births. It is therefore common that midwifery practitioners will initiate resuscitation. Despite this, midwives perform poorly when compared to anesthesia and pediatric residents. To address this discrepancy, a multidisciplinary, simulation-based newborn resuscitation program should be considered with continual clinical reenforcement of best practice.