Effects of opening a vertical care area on emergency medicine resident clinical experience.

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
AEM Education and Training Pub Date : 2024-11-20 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1002/aet2.11040
Alina Tsyrulnik, Craig Rothenberg, Wendy W Sun, Arjun Venkatesh, Ryan F Coughlin, Katja Goldflam, Rohit B Sangal
{"title":"Effects of opening a vertical care area on emergency medicine resident clinical experience.","authors":"Alina Tsyrulnik, Craig Rothenberg, Wendy W Sun, Arjun Venkatesh, Ryan F Coughlin, Katja Goldflam, Rohit B Sangal","doi":"10.1002/aet2.11040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Challenging clinical environments faced by emergency departments (EDs) have led to operational changes including implementation of vertical care units and fast-track units. Little is known regarding the impact of such units on resident physician clinical education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, observational study was performed at an urban quaternary care ED evaluating the effect of opening a vertical care unit with a triage physician directing lower acuity patients to be seen by physician associates (PAs)/advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) on the following parameters: (1) percentage of patients seen by residents, (2) Emergency Severity Index (ESI) of patients seen by residents, (3) number of procedures performed by residents, (4) number of patients per shift seen by residents, (5) percentage of critical care patients seen by residents, and (6) percentage of behavioral health patients seen by residents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comparing the implementation of the vertical care unit to the prior 3 months, postgraduate year (PGY)-1 residents had greater exposure to ESI Levels 1 and 2 (odds ratio [OR] 2.15) and more critical care (OR 2.58). PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents had a lower exposure to ESI 1 and 2 patients (PGY-2 OR 0.63, PGY-3 OR 0.61) and less critical care exposure (OR 0.64 for PGY-2 and OR 0.62 for PGY-3) after implementation. PGY-1 residents saw fewer behavioral health patients (OR 0.65) while the other two classes saw more (PGY-2 OR 1.64, PGY-3 OR 2.74). ESI 4 and 5 exposure decreased for all classes (PGY-1 OR 0.15, PGY-2 OR 0.86, PGY-3 OR 0.72). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients treated by residents (<i>p</i> = 0.85) or the number of procedures performed by residents (<i>p</i> = 0.25) comparing the implementation of a vertical care unit to the prior 3 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests no detrimental effects of vertical care unit implementation on multiple resident education outcomes including the number and acuity level of patients seen as well as procedure numbers of resident trainees. While the outcomes measured did not show significant negative effect for the resident compliment as a whole, we noted changes to the distribution of patient acuity based on PGY level. Similar assessments are recommended to determine the educational impact of comparable operational changes in other EDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"8 6","pages":"e11040"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11576914/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.11040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Challenging clinical environments faced by emergency departments (EDs) have led to operational changes including implementation of vertical care units and fast-track units. Little is known regarding the impact of such units on resident physician clinical education.

Methods: A retrospective, observational study was performed at an urban quaternary care ED evaluating the effect of opening a vertical care unit with a triage physician directing lower acuity patients to be seen by physician associates (PAs)/advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) on the following parameters: (1) percentage of patients seen by residents, (2) Emergency Severity Index (ESI) of patients seen by residents, (3) number of procedures performed by residents, (4) number of patients per shift seen by residents, (5) percentage of critical care patients seen by residents, and (6) percentage of behavioral health patients seen by residents.

Results: Comparing the implementation of the vertical care unit to the prior 3 months, postgraduate year (PGY)-1 residents had greater exposure to ESI Levels 1 and 2 (odds ratio [OR] 2.15) and more critical care (OR 2.58). PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents had a lower exposure to ESI 1 and 2 patients (PGY-2 OR 0.63, PGY-3 OR 0.61) and less critical care exposure (OR 0.64 for PGY-2 and OR 0.62 for PGY-3) after implementation. PGY-1 residents saw fewer behavioral health patients (OR 0.65) while the other two classes saw more (PGY-2 OR 1.64, PGY-3 OR 2.74). ESI 4 and 5 exposure decreased for all classes (PGY-1 OR 0.15, PGY-2 OR 0.86, PGY-3 OR 0.72). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients treated by residents (p = 0.85) or the number of procedures performed by residents (p = 0.25) comparing the implementation of a vertical care unit to the prior 3 months.

Conclusions: This study suggests no detrimental effects of vertical care unit implementation on multiple resident education outcomes including the number and acuity level of patients seen as well as procedure numbers of resident trainees. While the outcomes measured did not show significant negative effect for the resident compliment as a whole, we noted changes to the distribution of patient acuity based on PGY level. Similar assessments are recommended to determine the educational impact of comparable operational changes in other EDs.

开设垂直护理区对急诊科住院医师临床经验的影响。
背景:急诊科(ED)面临着严峻的临床环境,这导致其运营发生了变化,包括实施垂直护理单元和快速通道单元。但人们对这类科室对住院医生临床教育的影响知之甚少:在一个城市的四级医疗急诊室开展了一项回顾性观察研究,评估了开设垂直护理单元,由分诊医师引导低危重病人由助理医师(PA)/高级注册护士(APRN)就诊对以下参数的影响:(1)由助理医师(PA)/高级注册护士就诊的病人比例;(2)由助理医师(PA)/高级注册护士就诊的病人比例;(3)由助理医师(PA)/高级注册护士就诊的病人比例:(1) 由住院医师诊治的患者比例;(2) 由住院医师诊治的患者的急诊严重程度指数 (ESI);(3) 由住院医师实施的手术数量;(4) 由住院医师每班诊治的患者数量;(5) 由住院医师诊治的危重症患者比例;(6) 由住院医师诊治的行为健康患者比例。结果:将垂直护理单元的实施时间与之前的 3 个月进行比较,研究生 1 年级的住院医师接触 ESI 1 级和 2 级的机会更多(几率比 [OR] 2.15),危重症护理的机会更多(几率比 2.58)。实施 ESI 后,PGY-2 和 PGY-3 住院医师接触 ESI 1 级和 2 级病人的机会较少(PGY-2 OR 0.63,PGY-3 OR 0.61),接触危重症护理的机会较少(PGY-2 OR 0.64,PGY-3 OR 0.62)。PGY-1 级住院医师接诊的行为健康患者较少(OR 0.65),而其他两级住院医师接诊的行为健康患者较多(PGY-2 OR 1.64,PGY-3 OR 2.74)。所有班级的 ESI 4 和 5 接触率都有所下降(PGY-1 OR 0.15,PGY-2 OR 0.86,PGY-3 OR 0.72)。与之前 3 个月相比,由住院医师治疗的患者比例(p = 0.85)或住院医师实施的手术数量(p = 0.25)均无明显差异:本研究表明,垂直护理单元的实施对住院医师教育的多种结果(包括就诊患者的数量和急症程度以及住院医师学员的手术数量)没有不利影响。虽然所测量的结果并未显示出对住院医师整体的显著负面影响,但我们注意到根据住院医师年级的不同,患者急性期的分布也发生了变化。建议进行类似的评估,以确定类似的操作变化对其他急诊室教育的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信