Search

Objectives To evaluate the impact and feasibility of multisource feedback compared with traditional feedback for trauma team captains (TTCs).Design A mixed-methods, non-randomised prospective study.Setting A level one trauma centre in Ontario, Canada.Participants Postgraduate medical residents in emergency medicine and general surgery participating as TTCs. Selection was based on a convenience sampling method.Intervention Postgraduate medical residents participating as TTCs received either multisource feedback or standard feedback following trauma cases.Main outcome measures TTCs completed questionnaires designed to measure the self-reported intention to change practice (catalytic effect), immediately following a trauma case and 3 weeks later. Secondary outcomes included measures of perceived benefit, acceptability, and feasibility from TTCs and other trauma team members.Results Data were collected following 24 trauma team activations: TTCs from 12 activations received multisource feedback and 12 received standard feedback. The self-reported intention for practice change was not significantly different between groups initially (4.0 vs 4.0, p=0.57) and at 3 weeks (4.0 vs 3.0, p=0.25). Multisource feedback was perceived to be helpful and superior to the existing feedback process. Feasibility was identified as a challenge.Conclusions The self-reported intention for practice change was no different for TTCs who received multisource feedback and those who received standard feedback. Multisource feedback was favourably received by trauma team members, and TTCs perceived multisource feedback as useful for their development.

Background: Simulation-based assessment can complement workplace-based assessment of rare or difficult to assess Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). We aimed to compare the use of simulation-based assessment for resuscitation-focused EPAs in three postgraduate medical training programs and describe faculty perceptions of simulation-based assessment. Methods: EPA assessment scores and setting (simulation or workplace) were extracted from 2017-2020 for internal medicine, emergency medicine, and surgical foundations residents at the transition to discipline and foundations of discipline stages. A questionnaire was distributed to clinical competency committee members. Results: Eleven percent of EPA assessments were simulation-based. The proportion of simulation-based assessment did not differ between programs but differed between transition (38%) and foundations (4%) stages within surgical foundations only. Entrustment scores differed between settings in emergency medicine at the transition level only (simulation: 4.82 ± 0.60 workplace: 3.74 ± 0.93). 70% of committee members (n=20) completed the questionnaire. Of those that use simulation-based assessment, 45% interpret them differently than workplace-based assessments. 73% and 100% trust simulation for high-stakes and low-stakes assessment, respectively. Conclusions: The proportion of simulation-based assessment for resuscitation focused EPAs did not differ between three postgraduate medical training programs. Interpretation of simulation-based assessment data between committee members was inconsistent. All respondents trust simulation-based assessment for low-stakes, and the majority for high-stakes assessment. These findings have practical implications for the integration simulation into programs of assessment.

Implication Statement On-call medical emergencies can be a source of anxiety for junior medical residents. Senior resident teachers are well-positioned to teach a safe approach to managing on-call emergencies, and simulation-based training has educational and patient safety advantages. We describe the implementation of a resident-facilitated, on-call emergency simulation course for first-year residents. The course was low-cost, time-efficient, increased residents’ self-rated comfort with acutely deteriorating patients and was highly recommended by participants. The “R1 Nightmares” course could be adapted for other residency programs and institutions.

Background: The direct observation and assessment of learners’ resuscitation skills by an attending physician is challenging due to the unpredictable and time-sensitive nature of these events. Multisource feedback (MSF) may address this challenge and improve the quality of assessments provided to learners. We aimed to describe the similarities and differences in the assessment rationale of attending physicians, registered nurses, and resident peers in the context of a simulation-based resuscitation curriculum. Methods: We conducted a qualitative content analysis of narrative MSF of medical residents in their first postgraduate year of training who were participating in a simulation-based resuscitation course at two Canadian institutions. Assessments included an entrustment score and narrative comments from attending physicians, registered nurses, and resident peers in addition to self-assessment. Narrative comments were transcribed and analyzed thematically using a constant comparative method. Results: All 87 residents (100%) participating in the 2017-2018 course provided consent. A total of 223 assessments were included in our analysis. Four themes emerged from the narrative data: 1) Communication, 2) Leadership, 3) Demeanor, and 4) Medical Expert. Relative to other assessor groups, feedback from nurses focused on patient-centred care and communication while attending physicians focused on the medical expert theme. Peer feedback was the most positive. Self-assessments included comments within each of the four themes. Conclusions: In the context of a simulation-based resuscitation curriculum, MSF provided learners with different perspectives in their narrative assessment rationale and may offer a more holistic assessment of resuscitation skills within a competency-based medical education (CBME) program of assessment.