Emergency Medicine resident anesthesia training in a private vs. academic setting.

BACKGROUND: Airway management is an essential part of any Emergency Medicine (EM) training program. Academic centers typically provide training to many learners at various training levels in a number of medical specialties during anesthesiology rotations. This potentially creates competition for intubation procedures that may negatively impact individual experiences. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that residents would report higher numbers of intubations and improved educational value in a private practice, rather than an academic, anesthesiology rotation. METHODS: EM residents' anesthesiology training was evaluated pre and post a change in training setting from an academic institution to a private practice institution. Outcome measures included the number of self-reported intubations, resident ratings of the rotation, and the number of positive comments. Residents' evaluation was measured with: a 14-item evaluation; subjective comments, which two blinded reviewers rated as positive, negative, or neutral; and transcripts from structured interviews to identify themes related to training settings. RESULTS: The number of intubations increased significantly in the private practice setting (4.6 intubations/day vs. 1.5 intubations/day, p < 0.001). Resident evaluations improved significantly with the private practice experience (mean scores of 3.83 vs. 2.23, p-values <0.05). Residents' impressions were also significantly higher for the private practice setting with respect to increased educational value, greater use of adjunct airway devices, and directed teaching. CONCLUSIONS: Number of intubations performed and residents' rating of the educational value were more favorable for a private practice anesthesiology rotation. Alternative settings may provide benefit for training in areas that have competition among trainees.

Prospective evaluation of the treatment of pain in the ED using computerized physician order entry.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of pain in the emergency department (ED) is a significant area of focus, as previous studies have noted generally inadequate treatment of pain in ED patients. Previous studies have not evaluated the impact of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on the treatment of pain in the ED. We sought to evaluate treatment of pain before and after implementation of CPOE in an academic ED. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED with a pain-related complaint in 4-month periods before and after CPOE implementation. We compared numbers who received pain medications, time from registration to administration of pain medication, and repeat dosing of pain medication. RESULTS: Six hundred forty-six ED patients participated in the pre-CPOE period, whereas 592 patients participated post-CPOE. Similar numbers of patients received pain medications in the pre-CPOE and post-CPOE periods (55% vs 59%; P = .139), whereas those in the post-CPOE period were more likely to receive a repeat dose of pain medications (10.5% vs 17.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The use of CPOE in the ED may offer modest benefits in the treatment of patients with pain-related complaints.