The Future of Emergency Medicine

Advanced practice providers in academic emergency medicine: A national survey of chairs and program directors

BACKGROUND

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Board of Directors convened a task force to elucidate the current state of workforce, operational, and educational issues being faced by academic medical centers related to advanced practice providers (APPs). The task force surveyed academic emergency department (ED) chairs and residency program directors (PDs).

METHODS

The survey was distributed to the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM)-member chairs and their respective residency PDs in 2021. We surveyed 125 chairs with their self-identified PDs. The survey sampled hiring, state-independent practice laws, scope of practice, teaching and supervision, training opportunities, delegation of procedures between physician learners and APPs, and perceptions of the impact on resident and medical student education.

RESULTS

Of the AACEM-member chairs identified, 73% responded and 47% of PDs responded. Most (98%) employ either physician assistants or nurse practitioners. Among responding departments, 86% report APPs working in fast-track settings, 80% work in the main ED, and 54% work in the waiting room. In 44% of departments, APPs and residents evaluate patients concurrently, and 2% of respondents reported that APPs manage high-acuity patients without attending involvement. Two-thirds of chairs believe that APPs contribute positively to the quality of patient care, while 44% believe that APPs contribute to the academic environment. One-third of PDs believe that the presence of APPs interferes with resident education. Although 75% of PDs believe that residents require training to work effectively with APPs in the ED, almost half (49%) report zero hours of training around APP supervision or collaborative skills.

CONCLUSIONS

APPs are ubiquitous across academic EDs. Future research is required for academic ED leaders to balance physician and APP deployment across the academic ED within the context of patient care, resident education, institutional resources, professional development opportunities for APP staff, and standardization of APP EM training.

Evidence-based prehospital management of severe traumatic brain injury: a comparative analysis of current clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

This study appraised the completeness and level of evidence behind prehospital recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for management of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Differences and similarities in key recommendations for prehospital emergency care were assessed between current CPGs.

METHODS

A systematic search identified current evidence-based CPGs for the management of severe TBI. The identified CPGs were screened for prehospital recommendations. Finally, an evaluation of the completeness and level of evidence for each of the identified recommendations was carried out. A review of the literature identified additional evidence. Designs of the retrieved publications were considered and classified according to the GRADE levels of evidence.

RESULTS

This study identified 12 current CPGs for the management of patients after traumatic brain injury. Of these, twenty-one prehospital recommendations were selected. Only a few CPGs made recommendations on temperature management and ventilation patterns. Statements on prehospital transport and advanced airway management were common to all of the guidelines. Statements on initial treatment demonstrated the greatest variability. The literature review identified several relevant publications not included in the CPGs even after we controlled for the indicated time-intervals of their literature search. In addition, evidence from more recent trials published outside the search-interval of the clinical practice guidelines was found.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of current guidelines on traumatic brain injury will not always facilitate decisions about best or most appropriate practice for prehospital practitioners. The amount of recommended prehospital interventions varied considerably, and there was large content variation in prehospital recommendations in these guidelines. Not all evidence was taken into account and not all CPGs were up-to-date.