Background

Pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) has seen little progression toward a standardized PEM educational framework. The 2018 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on Advancing PEM Education addressed this gap in core EM education. Absent elements include a "broad needs assessment to identify and evaluate existing curricula and systems gaps in EM training" and a "clearly defined core PEM curriculum that unifies and drives the learning process." PEM education innovators were called to construct a "unified foundation in PEM education for all levels of emergency care" and to "promote innovation in teaching and learning strategies in curricula." We endeavored to meet this challenge at our institution.

Methods

The PEM curriculum design is based on the Kern model of curriculum development and included a needs assessment, development of goals and objectives, educational strategies, implementation, evaluation, and programmatic feedback. We committed to using effective learning strategies and active learning methods in developing our curriculum and conducted a 1-year pilot within our EM residency's didactic conference. We used exit surveys to collect feedback for each session as well as midyear focus groups to gauge the program's effectiveness. At the start and end of the pilot year residents completed the PEM survey regarding the effect of the PEM curriculum on their self-assessed knowledge, training, and comfort in managing PEM topics.

Results

Feedback regarding the PEM curriculum was positive. Following 1 year of the pilot curriculum, learners in the PGY-1 and PGY-3 classes demonstrated statistically significant improvement in their self-assessed knowledge, training, and comfort with PEM topics. The PGY-2 class had a similar statistically significant improvement in self-assessed knowledge in PEM topics.

Conclusions

Our novel PEM curriculum was well received and has shown early evidence of improving self-assessed knowledge and comfort among EM residents.

Background

There are few outcomes experienced by children receiving care in the Emergency Department (ED) that are amenable to measuring for the purposes of assessing of quality of care. The purpose of this study was to develop, test, and validate a new implicit review instrument that measures quality of care delivered to children in EDs.

Methods

We developed a 7-point structured implicit review instrument that encompasses four aspects of care, including the physician's initial data gathering, integration of information and development of appropriate diagnoses; initial treatment plan and orders; and plan for disposition and follow-up. Two pediatric emergency medicine physicians applied the 5-item instrument to children presenting in the highest triage category to four rural EDs, and we assessed the reliability of the average summary scores (possible range of 5-35) across the two reviewers using standard measures. We also validated the instrument by comparing this mean summary score between those with and without medication errors (ascertained independently by two pharmacists) using a two-sample t-test.

Results

We reviewed the medical records of 178 pediatric patients for the study. The mean and median summary score for this cohort of patients were 27.4 and 28.5, respectively. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha of 0.92 and 0.89). All items showed a significant (p < 0.005) positive correlation between reviewers using the Spearman rank correlation (range 0.24 to 0.39). Exact agreement on individual items between reviewers ranged from 70.2% to 85.4%. The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient for the mean of the total summary score across the two reviewers was 0.65. The validity of the instrument was supported by the finding of a higher score for children without medication errors compared to those with medication errors which trended toward significance (mean score = 28.5 vs. 26.0, p = 0.076).

Conclusion

The instrument we developed to measure quality of care provided to children in the ED has high internal consistency, fair to good inter-rater reliability and inter-rater correlation, and high content validity. The validity of the instrument is supported by the fact that the instrument's average summary score was lower in the presence of medication errors, which trended towards statistical significance.