Introduction: Despite the ubiquity of single-best answer multiple-choice questions (MCQ) in assessments throughout medical education, question writers often receive little to no formal training, potentially decreasing the validity of assessments. While lengthy training opportunities in item writing exist, the availability of brief interventions is limited.

Methods: We developed and performed an initial validation of an item-quality assessment tool and measured the impact of a brief educational intervention on the quality of single-best answer MCQs.

Results: The item-quality assessment tool demonstrated moderate internal structure evidence when applied to the 20 practice questions (κ=.671, p<.001) and excellent internal structure when applied to the true dataset (κ=0.904, p<.001). Quality scale scores for pre-intervention questions ranged from 2-6 with a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 3.79 ± 1.23, while post-intervention scores ranged from 4-6 with a mean ± SD of 5.42 ± 0.69. The post-intervention scores were significantly higher than the pre-intervention scores, x2(1) =38, p <0.001.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrated short-term improvement in single-best answer MCQ writing quality after a brief, open-access lecture, as measured by a simple, novel, grading rubric with reasonable validity evidence.

Introduction: Opportunities for chest tube placement in emergency medicine training programs have decreased, making competence development and maintenance with live patients problematic. Available trainers are expensive and may require costly maintenance.

Methods: We constructed an anatomically-detailed model using a Halloween skeleton thorax, dress form torso, and yoga mat. Participants in a trial session completed a survey regarding either their comfort with chest tube placement before and after the session or the realism of Yogaman vs. cadaver lab, depending on whether they had placed <10 or 10 or more chest tubes in live patients.

Results: Inexperienced providers reported an improvement in comfort after working with Yogaman, (comfort before 47 millimeters [mm] [interquartile ratio {IQR}, 20-53 mm]; comfort after 75 mm [IQR, 39-80 mm], p=0.01). Experienced providers rated realism of Yogaman and cadaver lab similarly (Yogaman 79 mm [IQR, 74-83 mm]; cadaver lab 78 mm [IQR, 76-89 mm], p=0.67). All evaluators either agreed or strongly agreed that Yogaman was useful for teaching chest tube placement in a residency program.

Conclusion: Our chest tube trainer allowed for landmark identification, tissue dissection, pleura puncture, lung palpation, and tube securing. It improved comfort of inexperienced providers and was rated similarly to cadaver lab in realism by experienced providers. It is easily reusable and, at $198, costs a fraction of the price of available commercial trainers.