Schoenborn Scott, Steratore Anthony F, Hoffman Adam, Marshall Thomas C, Shaver Erica B, Kiefer Christopher S
West Virginia University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Morgantown, WV.
David and JoAnn Shaw Center for Simulation Training and Education for Patient Safety, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
J Educ Teach Emerg Med. 2024 Apr 30;9(2):S55-S77. doi: 10.21980/J8K933. eCollection 2024 Apr.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
本次模拟的目标受众是急诊医学(EM)住院医师。医学生、高级执业提供者和在职医生也都能从这个场景中获得教育价值。
根据美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)的数据,心血管疾病是美国的主要死因。仅在2021年,冠状动脉疾病就导致了37.5万人死亡,约5%的成年患者有冠状动脉疾病史。此外,胸痛本身是急诊科常见的主要症状,在美国每年有近800万人次就诊患者,其中10%-20%的患者最终被诊断为急性冠状动脉综合征,包括ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)。鉴于此,急诊医学住院医师必须做好充分准备,以护理所有胸痛患者,无论其处于急性护理还是紧急情况。在整个培训过程中,大多数急诊医学住院医师通常在拥有24小时导管插入实验室的大型三级或四级医疗中心学习和评估患者。对于心电图(EKG)结果与STEMI一致的患者,标准治疗方法是在患者到达后90分钟内进行心脏导管插入术和支架置入术。不幸的是,只有一半生活在农村地区的患者在60分钟车程内能够使用具备心脏导管插入术能力的设施,这使得这些患者难以在理想的时间范围内接受心脏导管插入术。这些患者仍然是溶栓治疗的候选者,但由于住院医师培训期间学习和使用溶栓药物的机会很少,即将毕业的急诊医学住院医师在开始执业前可能不熟悉其适应症、剂量和禁忌症。此外,最近的急诊医学劳动力数据表明,尽管到2030年可能会有8000名急诊医生供应过剩,但农村地区仍有大量急诊医生的执业机会。尽管从历史上看,急诊医学毕业生没有选择在农村地区执业,只有大约8%的急诊医生在农村地区执业,但考虑到许多非农村地区现有的机会和感知到的饱和状态,可能会有更多的急诊医学毕业生选择在农村地区执业。考虑到这些不断变化的执业动态,本次模拟为住院医师和医学生提供了在农村环境中体验STEMI管理的机会,重点是接受溶栓治疗患者的适应症、禁忌症、剂量和处置。
在本次模拟结束时,学习者将能够:准确诊断ST段抬高型心肌梗死,并在无法及时进行心脏导管插入术的农村环境中启动溶栓治疗。与模拟患者进行共同决策对话,明确阐述溶栓治疗的益处和风险。确定ST段抬高型心肌梗死溶栓治疗的适应症和禁忌症。在完成溶栓治疗后安排将患者转运至三级护理中心。
此场景是在农村急诊科环境中的模拟会诊,需要诊断STEMI,在给药前与患者讨论溶栓治疗的风险和益处,进行溶栓治疗,并将患者转运至更高水平的护理机构。
学习者在案例完成后使用内部开发的调查问卷对作为教学工具的本次模拟的教育内容进行评估。我们的模拟教员和西弗吉尼亚大学急诊医学系医学教育的其他成员对该调查问卷的语言准确性和学习目标评估进行了审查。要求学习者说明之前在农村STEMI管理方面的任何经验,并通过五点李克特量表进行量化,其中1 =非常不舒服,5 =非常舒服,分别表示他们在模拟前后对溶栓治疗的舒适程度以及与患者就溶栓治疗进行共同决策对话的舒适程度。学习者还被要求在五点李克特量表上对本次模拟在帮助他们为农村环境中STEMI患者进行溶栓治疗做准备方面的有用性进行排名,其中1 =无用,5 =非常有用。还提供了一个开放式回答部分,让学习者有机会直接对模拟的任何方面发表评论。
通过调查从16名PGY1 - 3住院医师学习者中匿名收集数据,回复率为100%。总体而言,收到的关于模拟的反馈是积极的。在进行溶栓治疗以及就溶栓治疗进行共同决策对话方面,平均舒适程度较低。在帮助住院医师进行此类对话以及管理农村环境中的STEMI方面,对本次模拟的有用性评价较高。关于模拟的主观评论普遍是积极的。
农村急诊科中STEMI的管理与许多急诊医学住院医师培训的环境有很大不同。作为美国的主要死因,STEMI管理是急诊医学住院医师教育的重要组成部分。尽管讨论了农村环境中的溶栓概念,但尽管许多毕业生最终在农村急诊科工作,其实际执行的现实经验机会往往有限。本次模拟旨在提供一次真实的患者会诊,以促进在STEMI治疗中识别、与患者讨论和执行溶栓治疗方面的熟悉程度和舒适度。通过学习者完成调查问卷显示,教育内容是有效的。