Management of the Academic Emergency Department

The Ethics of Procedural Education Under Pandemic Conditions

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted emergency medicine residents’ education. Early in the pandemic, many facilities lacked adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), and intubation was considered particularly high risk for transmission to physicians, leading hospitals to limit the number of individuals present during the procedure. This posed difficulties for residents and academic faculty, as opportunities to perform endotracheal intubation during residency are limited, but patients with COVID-19 requiring intubation are unstable and have difficult airways.

Case Scenario: When PPE is being rationed, who should be the one to perform an intubation on a patient with respiratory failure from severe COVID-19?

Discussion: We examined this case scenario using the ethical frameworks of bioethical principles and virtue ethics. Bioethical principles include justice, beneficence, nonmalfeasance, and autonomy, and virtue ethics emphasizes the provision of moral exemplars and opportunities to exercise practical wisdom. Arguments for an attending-only strategy include the role of the attending as a truly autonomous decision maker and the importance of providing residents with a moral exemplar. A resident-only strategy benefits a resident's future patients and provides opportunities for residents to exercise character. Strategies preserving the dyad of attending and resident maintain these advantages and mitigate some drawbacks, while intubation teams may provide the most parsimonious use of PPE, but may elide resident involvement.

Conclusions: There exist compelling motivations for involving senior residents and attendings in high-risk intubations during the COVID-19 pandemic. A just strategy will preserve residents’ role whenever possible, while maximizing supervision and providing alternative routes for intubation practice.

Work Climate Scale in Emergency Services: Abridged Version

This study is based on a 40-item work climate scale in hospital emergency services (WCSHES). Teams working in these emergency services experience a heavy workload and have a limited amount of time with each patient. COVID-19 has further complicated these existing issues. Therefore, we believed it would be helpful to draft an abridged version of the 40-item WCSHES, considering both validity and reliability criteria, but giving greater weight to validity. One hundred and twenty-six workers between the ages of 20 to 64 (M = 32.45; standard deviation (SD = 9.73)) years old participated voluntarily in the study. The validity, reliability, and fit model were evaluated in an iterative process. The confirmatory factor analysis yielded appropriate global fit indices in the abridged 24-item version (Χ²(248) = 367.84; p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.06 with an interval of 90% from 0.05 to 0.07, SRMR = 0.08, GFI = 0.9, AGFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.95, and NNFI = 0.98), along with test criteria validity (ρ_XY = 0.68, p < 0.001) and excellent reliability (α = 0.94 and ω = 0.94), maintaining the same conceptualization and usefulness of the original scale. The abridged 24-item version was used to measure four work climate factors (work satisfaction, productivity/achievement of aims, interpersonal relations, and performance at work). Evidence of the usefulness of the new abridged scale is provided along with a description of our study limitations and future areas for development.