Bryan G Kane | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Cognitive versus technical debriefing after simulation training.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature describes "cognitive dispositions to respond" (CDRs) that may lead physicians to err in their clinical reasoning. OBJECTIVES: To assess learner perception of high-fidelity mannequin-based simulation and debriefing to improve understanding of CDRs. METHODS: Emergency medicine (EM) residents were exposed to two simulations designed to bring out the CDR concept known as "vertical line failure." Residents were then block-randomized to a technical/knowledge debriefing covering the medical subject matter or a CDR debriefing covering vertical line failure. They then completed a written survey and were interviewed by an ethnographer. Four investigators blinded to group assignment reviewed the interview transcripts and coded the comments. The comments were qualitatively analyzed and those upon which three out of four raters agreed were quantified. A random sample of 84 comments was assessed for interrater reliability using a kappa statistic. RESULTS: Sixty-two residents from two EM residencies participated. Survey results were compared by technical (group A, n = 32) or cognitive (group B, n = 30) debriefing. There were 255 group A and 176 group B comments quantified. The kappa statistic for coding the interview comments was 0.42. The CDR debriefing group made more, and qualitatively richer, comments regarding CDR concepts. The technical debriefing group made more comments on the medical subjects of cases. Both groups showed an appreciation for the risk of diagnostic error. CONCLUSIONS: Survey data indicate that technical debriefing was better received than cognitive debriefing. The authors theorize that an understanding of CDRs can be facilitated through simulation training based on the analysis of interview comments.

Cognition↗

PubMed2004

Compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.

UNLABELLED: Little is known about gaps in quality and the extent to which clinical standards are used in emergency department (ED) practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether ED practitioners comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for diagnosing and treating sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of ED visits was conducted at an urban teaching hospital. Using ICD-9 codes, urethritis, cervicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), gonorrhea, and chlamydia cases seen from May 1, 2000, to February 28, 2001, were identified. Documentation of components of the history, physical examination, diagnostic testing, prescribed antibiotics, and discharge instructions necessary to comply with the CDC guidelines were abstracted. This set of comprehensive criteria was compared with a less stringent subset of selected criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-six patient visits were identified, and 203 (83%) were included. Forty-eight men and 155 women were included: 48 (24%) with urethritis, 34 (17%) with cervicitis, and 121 (60%) with PID. For urethritis, cervicitis, and PID, respectively, there was documentation of compliance with indicators related to the following: history 73%, 15%, and 14%; physical examinations 63%, 15%, and 22%; diagnostic testing 79%, 71%, and 71%; antibiotic use 33%, 32%, and 32%; and safe sex instructions 50%, 18%, and 15% of the time. Men were more likely to receive safe sex instructions (p < or = 0.01). Total (100%) compliance in all five domains occurred 8% of the time for urethritis, 3% for cervicitis, and never for PID. The rates of 100% compliance were not significantly different when a subset of selected criteria was used. CONCLUSIONS: Deficits in adherence to recommended guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of STDs exist in ED practice.

Adult↗