Search

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the evidence regarding the infection risk associated with different modalities of oxygen therapy used in treating patients with severe acute respiratory infection. Health care workers face significant risk of infection when treating patients with a viral severe acute respiratory infection. To ensure health care worker safety and limit nosocomial transmission of such infection, it is crucial to synthesize the evidence regarding the infection risk associated with different modalities of oxygen therapy used in treating patients with severe acute respiratory infection. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1, 2000, to April 1, 2020, for studies describing the risk of infection associated with the modalities of oxygen therapy used for patients with severe acute respiratory infection. The study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by independent reviewers. The primary outcome measure was the infection of health care workers with a severe acute respiratory infection. Random-effect models were used to synthesize the extracted data. RESULTS: Of 22,123 citations, 50 studies were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 16 for meta-analysis. Globally, the quality of the included studies provided a very low certainty of evidence. Being exposed or performing an intubation (odds ratio 6.48; 95% confidence interval 2.90 to 14.44), bag-valve-mask ventilation (odds ratio 2.70; 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 5.36), and noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio 3.96; 95% confidence interval 2.12 to 7.40) were associated with an increased risk of infection. All modalities of oxygen therapy generate air dispersion. CONCLUSION: Most modalities of oxygen therapy are associated with an increased risk of infection and none have been demonstrated as safe. The lowest flow of oxygen should be used to maintain an adequate oxygen saturation for patients with severe acute respiratory infection, and manipulation of oxygen delivery equipment should be minimized.

ObjectiveSimulation plays an integral role in the Canadian healthcare system with applications in quality improvement, systems development, and medical education. High-quality, simulation-based research will ensure its effective use. This study sought to summarize simulation-based research activity and its facilitators and barriers, as well as establish priorities for simulation-based research in Canadian emergency medicine (EM).MethodsSimulation-leads from Canadian departments or divisions of EM associated with a general FRCP-EM training program surveyed and documented active EM simulation-based research at their institutions and identified the perceived facilitators and barriers. Priorities for simulation-based research were generated by simulation-leads via a second survey; these were grouped into themes and finally endorsed by consensus during an in-person meeting of simulation leads. Priority themes were also reviewed by senior simulation educators.ResultsTwenty simulation-leads representing all 14 invited institutions participated in the study between February and May, 2018. Sixty-two active, simulation-based research projects were identified (median per institution = 4.5, IQR 4), as well as six common facilitators and five barriers. Forty-nine priorities for simulation-based research were reported and summarized into eight themes: simulation in competency-based medical education, simulation for inter-professional learning, simulation for summative assessment, simulation for continuing professional development, national curricular development, best practices in simulation-based education, simulation-based education outcomes, and simulation as an investigative methodology.ConclusionThis study summarized simulation-based research activity in EM in Canada, identified its perceived facilitators and barriers, and built national consensus on priority research themes. This represents the first step in the development of a simulation-based research agenda specific to Canadian EM.

Introduction: Different tools have been developed to complement medical training, and improve student learning. Although social media has been described as an innovative educational strategy, evidence for its use is scarce in emergency medicine (EM). The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate whether brief teaching points (tweets) sent to medical students (MS) via a Twitter feed, would yield better exam score at the end of an emergency medicine (EM) rotation. Methods: Participants included in this prospective cohort study were MS completing an EM rotation at our tertiary care academic center. The control group was recruited from December 2016 to November 2017 and the experimental group from November 2017 to November 2018. The MS in the experimental group were invited to follow a Twitter feed. A total of 32 EM-related tweets based on learning objectives were sent out throughout the 4 week rotation. At the end of the rotation, MS of both cohorts took an exam and completed a survey of assiduity and appreciation. Exam scores were compared using t-tests. Results: A total of 80 MS were recruited for the study, 38 in the experimental cohort. Average exam scores were similar in both cohorts (control = 63 ± 9% vs experimental = 64 ± 8% for a mean difference of -2% [95%CI -6 to 2], p = 0.37). Of the experimental group, only 7 (18%) of the participants reported viewing more than 50% of the tweets. There was no difference between mean exam scores of this sub-group and that of the control cohort (66 ± 10% for a mean difference of 4% [95%CI -4 to 11], p = 0.33). The majority (n = 20, 53%) of the MS in the experimental cohort did not read any tweets. When compared to the rest of the experimental cohort MS who reported viewing ≥50% of the tweets found the Twitter feed to be a useful educational tool. Indeed, on a 3 item Likert scale used to evaluate different aspects of appreciation, they found the Twitter feed to be beneficial to their rotation (86% vs 13%, p < 0.001) as well as helpful in patient management (71% vs 16%, p = 0.001). These same MS would have liked more tweets (100% vs 19%, p < 0.001) and would like to use Twitter in other rotations (100% vs 32%, p = 0.005). Conclusion: In this study, there was no difference in the exam scores between MS having access to regular EM-focused educational tweets in comparison to those who did not. Results also found a lower than expected assiduity of MS to the educational Twitter feed, although those who used it significantly found it useful.