National community disparities in prehospital penetrating trauma adjusted for income, 2020-2021

INTRODUCTION

While Black individuals experienced disproportionately increased firearm violence and deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, less is known about community level disparities. We sought to evaluate national community race and ethnicity differences in 2020 and 2021 rates of penetrating trauma.

METHODS

We linked the 2018-2021 National Emergency Medical Services Information System databases to ZIP Code demographics. We stratified encounters into majority race/ethnicity communities (>50% White, Black, or Hispanic/Latino). We used logistic regression to compare penetrating trauma for each community in 2020 and 2021 to a combined 2018-2019 historical baseline. Majority Black and majority Hispanic/Latino communities were compared to majority White communities for each year. Analyses were adjusted for household income.

RESULTS

We included 87,504,097 encounters (259,449 penetrating traumas). All communities had increased odds of trauma in 2020 when compared to 2018-2019, but this increase was largest for Black communities (aOR 1.4, [1.3-1.4]; White communities - aOR 1.2, [1.2-1.3]; Hispanic/Latino communities - aOR 1.1. [1.1-1.2]). There was a similar trend of increased penetrating trauma in 2021 for Black (aOR 1.2, [1.2-1.3]); White (aOR 1.2, [1.1-1.2]); Hispanic/Latino (aOR 1.1, [1.1-1.1]). Comparing penetrating trauma in each year to White communities, Black communities had higher odds of trauma in all years (2018/2019 - aOR 3.0, [3.0-3.1]; 2020 - aOR 3.3, [3.3-3.4]; 2021 - aOR 3.3, [3.2-3.2]). Hispanic/Latino also had more trauma each year but to a lesser degree (2018/2019 - aOR 2.0, [2.0-2.0]; 2020 - aOR 1.8, [1.8-1.9]; 2021 - aOR 1.9, [1.8-1.9]).

CONCLUSION

Black communities were most impacted by increased penetrating trauma rates in 2020 and 2021 even after adjusting for income.

The more things change the more they stay the same: Factors influencing emergency medicine residency selection in the virtual era

Background

Interviews for emergency medicine (EM) residency positions largely transitioned to a virtual-only format in 2020-2021. The impact of virtual interview factors on applicants' rank of programs is unknown.

Objective

We sought to assess the impact of modifiable factors in virtual interviews on applicants' rank of EM residency programs.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional mixed-methods survey of students applying to at least one of seven study authors' EM residency programs in the United States during the 2020-2021 application cycle. The survey was developed using an interactive Delphi process and piloted prior to implementation. The survey was administered from May to June 2021 with up to four email reminders. Quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics. Three authors performed a thematic qualitative analysis of free-text responses.

Results

A total of 664 of 2281 (29.1%) students completed the survey, including 335 (50.5%) male, 316 (47.7%) female, and six (0.9%) nonbinary. A total of 143 (21.6%) respondents identified as underrepresented in medicine and 84 (12.7%) identified as LGBTQIA+. Respondents participated in a median of 14 interviews and ranked a median of 14 programs. Most respondents (335, 50.6%) preferred a choice of in-person or virtual, while 183 (27.6%) preferred all in-person, and 144 (21.8%) preferred all virtual. The program website and interview social were the most important factors influencing respondent ranking. Qualitative analysis revealed several positive aspects of virtual interviews including logistical ease and comfort. Negative aspects include technical issues, perceived interview hoarding, and barriers to applicant assessment and performance. Demonstrated effort by the program, effective information delivery, communication of resident culture, and a well-implemented interview day positively influenced respondents' rank of programs.

Conclusions

This study identified characteristics of the virtual interview format that impact applicants' rank of programs. These results can inform future recruitment practices.

An Ethical Framework for Conducting Active-Shooter Simulation in the Healthcare Environment

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Active shooter events, although rare, are increasing in frequency in the United States, and healthcare settings are not immune to such events. Of the 277 active shooter events that took place in the United States between 2000 and 2019, 15 (4.5%) took place in healthcare facilities. Healthcare workers (HCWs) must be (1) well trained to respond to an active shooter event and (2) trained to respond to active shooter casualties. Educational activities related to active shooter events require a clear focus on goals and objectives, balanced to assure the physical and psychological safety of all participants. This article outlines how the recommendations of the National Association of School Psychologists might be adapted to conduct active shooter drills in the healthcare setting. This approach provides a framework for managing some of the ethical considerations in active shooter simulations.

A Simulation-Based Prospective Cohort Study on Teaching Best Practices in Firearms Safety

BACKGROUND

Gun violence in the United States is a significant public health concern. The high rate of weapons carriage by Americans places medical providers at risk for exposure to firearms in the workplace and provides an opportunity for patient safety counseling. Few curricular interventions have been published on teaching firearms safety principles to medical providers. Given the risk of encountering firearms in the workplace and the opportunity to engage patients in firearms safety counseling, providers may benefit from dedicated training on safely handling firearms.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort pilot study of a simulation-based educational intervention for third- and fourth-year medical students enrolled in an emergency medicine subinternship and emergency medicine bootcamp elective. Before undergoing the educational intervention, students completed a preintervention simulation case during which they discovered a model firearm in the patient's belongings and were asked to remove it. Students then received the intervention that included a discussion and demonstration on how to safely remove a firearm in the clinical setting. Two weeks later, the students were presented with a model firearm in a different simulation case, which they needed to remove. During the preintervention and postintervention simulations, students were evaluated on their performance of the critical actions in firearm removal using an 8-item checklist. Students' scores on this checklist were compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-three students participated in the study, 25 of whom completed the postintervention assessment. The median number of correctly performed critical actions preintervention was 5 (interquartile range = 4-6) and postintervention was 7 (interquartile range = 6-8, P < 0.001). Students showed particular improvement in 4 steps: holding the firearm by the grip only, pointing the firearm in a safe direction at all times, removing the firearm from the immediate patient care area and placing it in a safe area, and ensuring that the firearm is monitored and untouched until police or security personnel arrive to secure it.

CONCLUSIONS

This educational intervention is the first to formally teach students about the safe handling of firearms found in the clinical care space. This low-cost pilot project is easily transferrable to other training centers for teaching principles of safe firearms handling.

Emergency Providers' Familiarity with Firearms: A National Survey

BACKGROUND

Emergency providers (EPs) are uniquely placed to advocate for firearm safety and have been shown to be at risk of exposure to firearms in the emergency department (ED). We sought to characterize EPs' knowledge of firearms, frequency of encountering firearms in the ED and level of confidence with safely removing firearms from patient care settings.

METHODS

This was a survey study of EPs representing medical centers in 22 states. A 15-item questionnaire was e-mailed to all EPs at all included institutions. Questions pertained to EPs' knowledge of firearms, experience with handling firearms, and exposure to firearms while at work. We calculated response proportions with p-values and conducted association analyses among survey items.

RESULTS

Of 2,192 survey recipients, 1,074 (49.0%) completed the survey. A total of 635 (59.1%) reported encountering firearms in the ED or its immediate environment at least once per year, and 582 (54.2%) were not confident in their ability to safely handle a firearm found in a patient's possession. Frequency of handling firearms was significantly higher in states in the top quartile for firearm ownership, with 21.5% of respondents reporting handling firearms daily or weekly, compared to 10.9% in bottom-quartile states. Level of firearms training also differed significantly: 42.1% of respondents in top-quartile states reported formal training compared to 33.0% in bottom-quartile states. Increased regional firearm ownership rates were associated with decreased rates of feeling unsafe at work.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of surveyed EPs reported little experience with handling firearms. Firearm experience was associated with comfort with managing firearms found in patients' possession. Regional differences were found regarding personal firearm experience and perceptions of workplace safety, both of which were associated with regional variations in firearm ownership. Despite this, no regional differences were found in encountering firearms in or around the ED. EPs may benefit from training on safely handling firearms.

Standardized Video Interview Scores Correlate Poorly with Faculty and Patient Ratings

The Standardized Video Interview (SVI) was developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges to assess professionalism, communication, and interpersonal skills of residency applicants. How SVI scores compare with other measures of these competencies is unknown. The goal of this study was to determine whether there is a correlation between the SVI score and both faculty and patient ratings of these competencies in emergency medicine (EM) applicants. This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected dataset of medical students. Students enrolled in the fourth-year EM clerkship at our institution and who applied to the EM residency Match were included. We collected faculty ratings of the students’ professionalism and patient care/communication abilities as well as patient ratings using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) from the clerkship evaluation forms. Following completion of the clerkship, students applying to EM were asked to voluntarily provide their SVI score to the study authors for research purposes. We compared SVI scores with the students’ faculty and patient scores using Spearman’s rank correlation. Of the 43 students from the EM clerkship who applied in EM during the 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 application cycles, 36 provided their SVI scores. All 36 had faculty evaluations and 32 had CAT scores available. We found that SVI scores did not correlate with faculty ratings of professionalism (rho = 0.09, p = 0.13), faculty assessment of patient care/communication (rho = 0.12, p = 0.04), or CAT scores (rho = 0.11, p = 0.06). Further studies are needed to validate the SVI and determine whether it is indeed a predictor of these competencies in residency.

Gluteal Burns from a Car Seat Heater in a Neurologically Intact Patient: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Car seat heaters are an increasingly common amenity in vehicles in the United States, but they have been shown to place neurologically impaired patients at risk for significant burns.

CASE REPORT

We discuss the case of a neurologically intact and otherwise healthy 49-year-old man who presented to the Emergency Department with second-degree gluteal and posterior upper thigh burns after using a car seat warmer for 8 consecutive hours. At no point during the course of his drive did he experience discomfort beyond feeling slightly warm. The patient was treated with supportive therapy and standard wound care, and he had a full recovery after 10 days. We review the pathophysiology of burns and discuss how seat heaters can place even neurologically intact patients at risk for significant burn injuries. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Our case is the first published report of a neurologically intact patient sustaining significant burns from the use of a car seat heater. This case illustrates that burn injuries can develop after prolonged exposure even at low temperatures. Emergency physicians should perform a careful skin examination on all patients presenting with gluteal discomfort in whom a history of car seat warmer use is obtained.

Emergency Physicians' Familiarity with the Safe Handling of Firearms

Introduction

Emergency physicians (EP) experience high rates of workplace violence, the risks of which increase with the presence of weapons. Up to 25% of trauma patients brought to the emergency department (ED) have been found to carry weapons. Given these risks, we conducted an educational needs assessment to characterize EPs’ knowledge of firearms, frequency of encountering firearms in the ED, and level of confidence with safely removing firearms from patient care settings.

Methods

This was a survey study of attending and resident EPs at two academic and four community hospitals in the Midwest and Northeast. A 26-item questionnaire was emailed to all EPs at the six institutions. Questions pertained to EPs’ knowledge of firearms, experience with handling firearms, and exposure to firearms while at work. We calculated response proportions and p-values.

Results

Of 243 recipients who received the survey, 149 (61.3%) completed it. Thirty-three respondents (22.0%) reported encountering firearms in the workplace, 91 (60.7%) reported never handling firearms, and 25 (16.7%) reported handling firearms at least once per year. Thirty-six respondents (24.0%) reported formal firearms training, and 63 (42.3%) reported no firearms training. There were no significant regional differences regarding firearms training or exposure. Residents from the Northeast were more likely to be moderately confident that they could safely handle a firearm prior to law enforcement involvement (p=0.043), while residents from the Midwest were more likely to be not at all confident (p=0.018).

Conclusion

The majority of surveyed attending and resident EPs reported little experience with handling firearms. Among resident EPs, there was a regional difference in confidence in handling firearms prior to law enforcement involvement. Given the realities of workplace violence and the frequency with which firearms are encountered in the ED, further investigation is needed to evaluate provider competence in safely handling them. EPs may benefit from training on this topic.

Supplemental Milestones for Emergency Medicine Residency Programs: A Validation Study

Introduction

Emergency medicine (EM) residency programs may be 36 or 48 months in length. The Residency Review Committee for EM requires that 48-month programs provide educational justification for the additional 12 months. We developed additional milestones that EM training programs might use to assess outcomes in domains that meet this accreditation requirement. This study aims to assess for content validity of these supplemental milestones using a similar methodology to that of the original EM Milestones validation study.

Methods

A panel of EM program directors (PD) and content experts at two institutions identified domains of additional training not covered by the existing EM Milestones. This led to the development of six novel subcompetencies: “Operations and Administration,” “Critical Care,” “Leadership and Management,” “Research,” “Teaching and Learning,” and “Career Development.” Subject-matter experts at other 48-month EM residency programs refined the milestones for these subcompetencies. PDs of all 48-month EM programs were then asked to order the proposed milestones using the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition for each subcompetency. Data analysis mirrored that used in the original EM Milestones validation study, leading to the final version of our supplemental milestones.

Results

Twenty of 33 subjects (58.8%) completed the study. No subcompetency or individual milestone met deletion criteria. Of the 97 proposed milestones, 67 (69.1%) required no further editing and remained at the same level as proposed by the study authors. Thirty milestones underwent level changes: 15 (15.5%) were moved one level up and 13 (13.4%) were moved one level down. One milestone (1.0%) in “Leadership and Management” was moved two levels up, and one milestone in “Operations and Administration” was moved two levels down. One milestone in “Research” was ranked by the survey respondents at one level higher than that proposed by the authors; however, this milestone was kept at its original level assignment.

Conclusion

Six additional subcompetencies were generated and assessed for content validity using the same methodology as was used to validate the current EM Milestones. These optional milestones may serve as an additional set of assessment tools that will allow EM residency programs to report these additional educational outcomes using a familiar milestone rubric.