RESUMO
Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) have undergone advancements in size and functionality over the past decade, resulting in the introduction of small, easily insertable devices capable of long-term remote monitoring. We define first-generation ICMs as implantable cardiac monitoring devices that require an incision and surgical creation of a subcutaneous pocket and second-generation ICMs as devices implanted using a custom-made tool for subcutaneous insertion, respectively. The aim of this study was to understand the differences between first- and second-generation pediatric ICM implants, implant indications, and time to diagnosis. We performed a retrospective, single-center chart review of patients who underwent ICM implantation from 2009-2019, spanning a 5-year course of first-generation ICM implantations and 5-year course of second-generation ICM implantations. Demographic data, past medical history, implant indication, and time to diagnosis were obtained. A total of 208 patients were identified over the 10-year time period, including 38 (18%) who underwent implantation with a first-generation device and 170 (82%) who underwent implantation with a second-generation device. Implant indications for first-generation ICMs included syncope (71%), palpitations (16%), inherited arrhythmia syndrome (IAS) management (5%), and premature ventricular contractions/ventricular tachycardia (VT) (8%); implant indications for second-generation ICMs included syncope (48%), palpitations (19%), IAS management (40%), premature ventricular contractions/VT (11%), atrial fibrillation (2%), tachycardia (3%), and heart block (0.5%). The average time to diagnosis was 38 weeks for patients with first-generation devices and 55 weeks for those with second-generation devices. With innovations in ICM technologies, there are expanding indications for ICM implantation in pediatric patients for long-term monitoring, specifically regarding the management of IAS patients.
RESUMO
Background: Safe patient care includes effective communication. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education common program requirements include core requirements for trainees to act in a consultative manner and communicate effectively. However, trainees do not commonly receive formal education on this topic. Objective: We created a 1-hour workshop to teach residents and fellows how to effectively call consults, including how to formulate a cogent and comprehensive consult question. Methods: The workshop, delivered over a 1-hour noon conference, included a didactic portion and interactive small-group case-based learning. We used pre- and postworkshop surveys to assess learners' prior training, knowledge, and comfort levels in calling consults. Subspecialists answered a separate survey about the quality of consults received from trainees before and 30 days after the workshop. Results: Seventy-three trainees attended the workshop (41.2% of total trainees invited). After the workshop, the percentage of learners who identified as very or somewhat comfortable with calling consults increased from 82% to 91%. Before the workshop, 87% of trainees could identify key elements in a consult, which increased to 100% after the workshop. There was not a statistically significant improvement in subspecialists' ratings of the overall quality of consults they received 30 days after the workshop. Conclusion: Training learners on the key components and etiquette of calling consults is crucial for the development of effective communication among providers. This training is generally lacking from undergraduate medical education; thus, it is important to provide education in calling consults during residency and fellowship.
