Managing STEMIs without a Catheterization Lab: A Simulated Scenario to Improve Emergency Clinician Recognition and Execution of Thrombolysis in the Setting of Rural STEMI Management.

Audience: The targeted audience for this simulation is Emergency Medicine (EM) residents. Medical students, advanced practice providers, and staff physicians could all also find educational merit in this scenario. Background: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States according to the CDC.1 Coronary artery disease caused 375,000 deaths 2021 alone, and about 5% of all adult patients have a prior history of coronary artery disease.2 Furthermore, chest pain itself is a common chief complaint encountered in the ED, with nearly 8 million visits annually occurring throughout the United States, with 10-20% of those patients ultimately being diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome3, including ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Given this, it is essential that EM residents are well prepared to care for all patients presenting with chest pain, regardless of the acute care or emergency setting.Throughout their training, most EM residents typically learn and evaluate patients at a large tertiary or quaternary medical center with 24-hour catheterization laboratory availability. For patients presenting with electrocardiogram (EKG) findings consistent with STEMI, the standard of care is for the patient to undergo cardiac catheterization and stent placement within 90 minutes of arrival. Unfortunately, only half of patients living in rural areas have a cardiac catheterization-capable facility available to them within a 60-minute driving radius, making it difficult for those patients to undergo cardiac catheterization within the desired time frame.4 These patients remain candidates for thrombolytic therapy, but given infrequent opportunities to learn about and deploy thrombolytic agents during residency training, graduating EM residents may be unfamiliar with indications, dosing, and contraindications before they begin practice. Furthermore, the recent EM workforce data suggests that although there may be an oversupply of 8,000 emergency physicians by 2030, robust practice opportunities for emergency physicians remain in rural settings.5 Although historically EM graduates have not selected rural areas for practice, with only approximately 8% of emergency physicians practicing in rural areas,6 it is likely that given the opportunities present and perceived saturation in many non-rural settings, more EM graduates will pursue practice in a rural setting. With these changing practice dynamics in mind, this simulation provides the opportunity for residents and medical students to experience the management of a STEMI in the rural setting, with a focus upon the indications, contraindications, dosing, and disposition of a patient receiving thrombolytics. Educational Objectives: By the end of this simulation, learners will be able to:Diagnose ST elevation myocardial infarction accurately and initiate thrombolysis in the rural setting without timely access to cardiac catheterization.Engage the simulated patient in a shared decision-making conversation, clearly outlying the benefits and risks of thrombolysis.Identify the indications and contraindications for thrombolysis in ST elevation myocardial infarction.Arrange for transfer to a tertiary care center following completion of thrombolysis. Educational Methods: This scenario is a simulated encounter in a rural emergency department setting requiring the diagnosis of a STEMI, a discussion with the patient regarding the risks and benefits of thrombolysis prior to administration, administration of thrombolysis, and transfer of patient to a higher level of care. Research Methods: The educational content of this simulation as a teaching instrument was evaluated by the learner utilizing an internally developed survey after case completion. This survey was reviewed for precision of language and assessment of learning objectives by our simulation faculty and other members of our West Virginia University Emergency Medicine Department of Medical Education. The learner was asked to specify any prior experience with rural STEMI management as well as quantify via a five-point Likert Scale, where 1 = very uncomfortable and 5 = very comfortable, their level of comfort with thrombolysis before and after the scenario as well as their comfort with having a shared decision-making conversation with patients with regards to thrombolysis. Learners were also asked to rank the helpfulness of this simulation in preparing them for administering thrombolytics for STEMI in a rural setting on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = not helpful and 5 =very helpful. An open response section was also provided to allow learners the opportunity to comment directly on any aspect of the simulation. Results: Data was collected anonymously from 16 PGY1-3 resident learners via surveys with a 100% response rate. Overall, the feedback received regarding the simulation was positive. There was a low average comfort level with administering thrombolytics and having a shared decision-making conversation regarding administering thrombolytics. There was a high average rating of the helpfulness of this simulation in preparing residents for this conversation as well as managing STEMIs in a rural setting. Subjective comments regarding the simulation were universally positive. Discussion: The management of STEMI in the rural emergency department differs significantly from the environment in which many EM residents train. As a leading cause of death in the United States, STEMI management is a vital component of EM resident education. Although the concept of thrombolysis in the rural setting is discussed, the opportunity for real-world experience in its execution is often limited despite many graduates ultimately working in rural emergency departments. This simulation sought to provide a realistic patient encounter to promote familiarity and comfort in the identification, patient discussion and execution of thrombolysis in the treatment of a STEMI. The educational content was shown to be effective via learner survey completion.

What do you do if your relief comes to work intoxicated: An Impaired Provider Scenario.

Audience: The primary audience for this simulation exercise is emergency medicine (EM) residents, although it could be more broadly applied to all provider groups, including medical students, advanced practice providers, and faculty physicians. Introduction: Over the course of their professional careers, approximately 10-15% of physicians will misuse or abuse alcohol or drugs.1 Unfortunately, Emergency Physicians (EPs) are not immune to this phenomenon, and although EPs make up only 4.7% of the active physician workforce,2 they are over-represented in samples of physicians referred to physician health programs (PHPs) for substance use disorder.3 Despite this increased prevalence, when EPs were referred to a PHP by themselves, family, or colleagues, 84% of them completed the program and were practicing medicine 5 years later,3 which makes recognition and referral of the impaired physician an important step to provide the treatment needed for recovery and ultimately for return to practice. Given the prevalence of substance use disorder in EPs, it is not surprising that the 2019 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Common Program Requirements in Emergency Medicine stipulate that "residents and faculty members must demonstrate an understanding of their personal role in the recognition of impairment, including from illness, fatigue, and substance use, in themselves, their peers, and other members of the health care team."4 Furthermore, the common program requirements also outline that each residency program must have "designated individuals responsible for reporting impaired providers in accordance with each institution's policies as well as being knowledgeable in the resources available to said provider."4 Despite these requirements, there are no best practices available to outline how residency programs can effectively teach trainees how to recognize and report the impairment. This simulation scenario is intended to provide an opportunity for learners to recognize an impaired colleague in a clinical setting, remove them from the clinical care environment, and notify the appropriate contacts, such as a Program Director, Department Chair, or nursing supervisor. To our knowledge, this is the first described simulation scenario where learners develop competency in recognizing and reporting the impaired provider. Objectives: By the end of this simulation, learners will be able to: 1) Identify potential impairment in the form of alcohol intoxication in a physician colleague; 2) demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively with the colleague and remove them from the patient care environment; 3) discuss the appropriate next steps in identifying long-term wellness resources for the impaired colleague; and 4) demonstrate understanding of the need to continue to provide care for the patients by moving the case forward. Educational Methods: This scenario is a simulated encounter taking place in the emergency department (ED) where the patient is a trauma activation who is not critically ill; the learner's confederate colleague in the scenario arrives for sign-out smelling of alcohol and appearing intoxicated. The learner will need to both provide care for the injured patient while addressing their colleague's impairment and safely removing them from the patient care area. Research Methods: The effectiveness of this simulated scenario as a teaching instrument was evaluated utilizing an internally developed evaluation survey that is part of the standard simulation curriculum at West Virginia University (WVU). The survey consisted of questions both regarding the effectiveness of the instructors as well as of the simulation, rated on a Likert scale. Learners were given the opportunity to answer free response questions where they were asked to reflect upon their experience, including the strengths of the experience and any identified opportunities for improvement. Results: Using a standard Likert scale, learners completing the impaired provider simulation scenario reviewed the effectiveness of the simulation and instructors very positively, with the vast majority of learners scoring all aspects of the scenario either as a 4 or 5. The free response answers were universally positive with many participants considering the experience very useful for training on a topic that is not frequently taught in other portions of the formal didactic curriculum. Discussion: While it is fortunately rare to encounter a colleague who is acutely intoxicated by alcohol or drugs and to simultaneously be responsible for providing patient care, it is important that learners are provided with formal instruction on how to recognize impairment and navigate the potentially difficult conversation with the impaired provider to ensure patient safety. This simulated scenario provides a realistic curricular instrument that could be implemented in any EM training program. Topics: Substance abuse; impaired provider; impaired provider reporting policies; professionalism; patient safety; provider safety.