Examining Barriers and Motivations to Speak up on Medical Errors in a Simulated Clinical Emergency: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Phenomenon: Effective communication between team members is essential during the resuscitation of critically-ill patients. Failure of junior doctors to speak up and challenge erroneous clinical decisions made by their senior doctors is a serious communication failure which can result in catastrophic outcomes and jeopardize patient safety. Crisis resource management (CRM) and conflict resolution tools have been increasingly employed in the healthcare setting to reduce communication failure among healthcare providers and improve patient safety during crisis situations. The aims of our study were to: 1) evaluate the factors affecting junior doctors' ability to speak up on medical errors, 2) examine the effectiveness of CRM and conflict resolution tools, and 3) formulate a communication framework directed at training junior doctors in appropriate intellectual questioning of authority. Approach: From January to April 2019, we recruited twenty-five second-year postgraduate junior doctors working in an Emergency Department in Singapore. We provided training in CRM and conflict resolution communication for participants in the intervention arm. Participants underwent a high-fidelity simulated resuscitation scenario which was standardized to include faculty misdirection in the form of erroneous instructions given by a role-played senior doctor. We observed if participants appropriately challenged the erroneous instructions. We subsequently interviewed participants on their response during the simulation to elicit their barriers and motivations toward challenging authority. Video recordings were analyzed by an independent panel of investigators. Findings: Participants employed various non-verbal and verbal approaches when challenging erroneous decisions. We uncovered multiple personal, interpersonal, and situation-based factors influencing the junior doctor's willingness to challenge erroneous decisions made by seniors. From their responses, we conceptualized a theoretical model designed as a "weighing scale" to demonstrate how junior doctor's eventual response is the outcome of a delicate interplay of multiple barriers and motivations. Our intervention did not significantly increase the participants' likelihood of challenging authority (69% in control arm vs 75% in intervention arm, p = 1.00). Insights: Our study provides insights into the mindset of junior doctors when faced with the dilemma of challenging authority on medical errors. Established CRM training may not be effective in addressing the challenges junior doctors face when communicating against the hierarchal gradient. We propose strategies to further develop and optimize CRM training to enhance its value for junior doctors. Drawing from our findings, we formulated a "SAFE" communication tool (State the safety concern, suggest Alternative course of action, Support with Facts, Engage via Enquiry) directed at helping junior doctors in appropriate intellectual questioning of authority.

Comparison of Reusable Models in Pericardiocentesis Simulation Training.

INTRODUCTION: Pericardiocentesis is a potentially life-saving procedure. We compared two low-cost models-an agar-based model and a novel model, Centesys-in terms of ultrasound image quality and realism, effectiveness of the model, and learners' confidence and satisfaction after training. METHODS: In this pilot randomised 2x2 crossover trial stratified by physician seniority, participants were assigned to undergo pericardiocentesis training either with the agar-based or Centesys model first, followed by the other model. Participants were asked to rate their confidence in performing ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis, clarity and realism of cardiac structures on ultrasound imaging, and satisfaction on a 7-point Likert scale before and after training with each model. RESULTS: Twenty participants with median postgraduate year of 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 3.75-6) years were recruited. Pre-training, participants rated themselves a median score of 2.5 (IQR 2-4) for level of confidence in performing pericardiocentesis, which improved to 5 (IQR 4-6) post-training with Centesys (P=0.007). Centesys was recognised to be more realistic in simulating cardiac anatomy on ultrasound (median 5 [IQR 4-5] versus 3.5 [IQR 3-4], P=0.002) than the agar-based model. There was greater satisfaction with Centesys (median 5 [IQR 5-6] versus 4 [IQR 3.75-4], P<0.001). All 20 participants achieved successful insertion of a pericardial drain into the simulated pericardial sac with Centesys. CONCLUSION: Centesys achieved greater learner satisfaction as compared to the agar-based model, and was an effective tool for teaching ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis and drain insertion.

Risk Factors for Emergency Department Unscheduled Return Visits.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aims to identify reasons for unscheduled return visits (URVs), and risk factors for diagnostic errors leading to URVs, with comparisons to data from a similar study conducted in the same institution 9 years ago. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included adult patients who attended the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary hospital in Singapore between January 2014 and June 2014, with re-attendance within 72 h for the same or similar complaint. The primary outcome was wrong or delayed diagnoses. Secondary outcomes include admission to the ED observation unit or ward on return visit. Findings were compared with the previous study performed in 2005 to identify trends. RESULTS: Of 67,422 attendances, there were 1298 (1.93%) URVs from 1207 patients (median age 34, interquartile range 24 to 52 years; 59.7% male). The most common presenting complaint was abdominal pain (22.2%). One hundred ninety-one (15.8%) patients received an initial wrong or delayed diagnosis. Factors (adjusted odds ratio; 95% CI) associated with this were: presenting complaints of abdominal pain (2.99; 2.12-4.23), fever (1.60; 1.1-2.33), neurological deficit (4.26; 1.94-9.35), and discharge without follow-up (1.61; 1.1-2.26). Among re-attendances, 459 (38.0%) required admission. Factors (adjusted odds ratio; 95% CI) associated with admission were: male gender (1.88; 1.42 to 2.48); comorbidities of diabetes mellitus (2.07; 1.29-3.31), asthma (5.23; 1.59-17.26), and renal disease (7.48; 2.00-28.05); presenting complaints of abdominal pain (1.83; 1.32-2.55), fever (3.05; 2.10-4.44), and giddiness or vertigo (2.17; 1.26-3.73). There was a reduction in URV rate compared to the previous study in 2005 (1.93% versus 2.19%). Abdominal pain at the index visit remains a significant cause of URVs (22.2% versus 25.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Presenting complaints of neurological deficits, abdominal pain, fever, and discharge without follow-up were associated with wrong or delayed diagnoses among URVs.