Error Management Training and Adaptive Expertise in Learning Computed Tomography Interpretation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adaptive expertise helps physicians apply their skills to novel clinical cases and reduce preventable errors. Error management training (EMT) has been shown to improve adaptive expertise with procedural skills; however, its application to cognitive skills in medical education is unclear. Objective: To evaluate whether EMT improves adaptive expertise when learning the cognitive skill of head computed tomography (CT) interpretation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 8, 2022, to March 30, 2023, in 7 geographically diverse emergency medicine residency programs. Participants were postgraduate year 1 through 4 emergency medicine residents masked to the hypothesis. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to a difficult EMT, easy EMT, or error avoidance training (EAT) control learning strategy for completing an online head CT curriculum. Both EMT cohorts received no didactic instruction before scrolling through head CT cases, whereas the EAT group did. The difficult EMT cohort answered difficult questions about the teaching cases, leading to errors, whereas the easy EMT cohort answered easy questions, leading to fewer errors. All 3 cohorts used the same cases. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a difference in adaptive expertise among the 3 cohorts, as measured using a head CT posttest. Secondary outcomes were (1) differences in routine expertise, (2) whether the quantity of errors during training mediated differences in adaptive expertise, and (3) the interaction between prior residency training and the learning strategies. Results: Among 212 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 28.8 [2.0] years; 107 men [50.5%]), 70 were allocated to the difficult EMT, 71 to the easy EMT, and 71 to the EAT control cohorts; 150 participants (70.8%) completed the posttest. The difficult EMT cohort outperformed both the easy EMT and EAT cohorts on adaptive expertise cases (60.6% [95% CI, 56.1%-65.1%] vs 45.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-50.6%], vs 40.9% [95% CI, 36.0%-45.7%], respectively; P < .001), with a large effect size (η2 = 0.19). There was no significant difference in routine expertise. The difficult EMT cohort made more errors during training than the easy EMT cohort. Mediation analysis showed that the number of errors during training explained 87.2% of the difficult EMT learning strategy's effect on improving adaptive expertise (P = .01). The difficult EMT learning strategy was more effective in improving adaptive expertise for residents earlier in training, with a large effect size (η2 = 0.25; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the findings show that EMT is an effective method to develop physicians' adaptive expertise with cognitive skills. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05284838.

Gaps in pediatric emergency medicine education of emergency medicine residents: A needs assessment of recent graduates.

Background: More than 90% of pediatric patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) in the United States are evaluated and treated in community-based EDs. Recent evidence suggests that mortality outcomes may be worse for critically ill pediatric patients treated at community EDs. The disparate mortality outcomes may be due to inconsistency in pediatric-specific education provided to emergency medicine (EM) trainees during residency training. There are few studies surveying recently graduated EM physicians assessing perceived gaps in the pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) education they received during residency. Methods: This was a prospective, survey-based, descriptive cohort study of EM residency graduates from 10 institutions across the United States who were <5 years out from residency training. Deidentified surveys were distributed via email. Results: A total of 222 responses were obtained from 570 eligible participants (39.1%). Non-ED pediatric rotations during residency training included pediatric intensive care (60%), pediatric anesthesia (32.4%), neonatal intensive care unit (26.1%), and pediatric wards (17.1%). A large percentage (42.8%) of respondents felt uncomfortable managing neonates and performing tube thoracostomy on pediatric patients (56.3%). The EM graduate's satisfaction with pediatric simulation-based training during residency was positively associated with comfort caring for neonates and infants (p < 0.0070 and p < 0.0002) and performing endotracheal intubation (p < 0.0027), lumbar puncture (p < 0.0004), and Pediatric Advanced Life Support resuscitation (p < 0.0001). Conclusions/discussion: This survey-based cohort study found considerable variation in pediatric-specific experiences during EM residency training and in perceived comfort managing pediatric patients. In general, participants were more comfortable managing older children. This study suggests that the greatest perceived knowledge gaps in PEM were neonatal medicine/resuscitation and pediatric cardiac arrest. Future research will continue to address larger cohorts, representative of the PEM education provided to EM physicians in the United States to promote future educational initiatives.