Background-Cardiac stress testing in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased false-positive test results, unnecessary downstream procedures, and increased cost. We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain stress testing. Methods and Results-The Chest Pain Choice trial was a prospective randomized evaluation involving 204 patients who were randomized to a decision aid or usual care and were followed for 30 days. The decision aid included a 100-person pictograph depicting the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome and available management options (observation unit admission and stress testing or 24 -72 hours outpatient follow-up). The primary outcome was patient knowledge measured by an immediate postvisit survey. Additional outcomes included patient engagement in decision making and the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and cardiac stress testing. Compared with usual care patients (nϭ103), decision aid patients (nϭ101) had significantly greater knowledge (3.6 versus 3.0 questions correct; mean difference, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.34 -1.0), were more engaged in decision making as indicated by higher OPTION (observing patient involvement) scores (26.6 versus 7.0; mean difference, 19.6; 95% CI, 1.6 -21.6), and decided less frequently to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing (58% versus 77%; absolute difference, 19%; 95% CI, 6%-31%). There were no major adverse cardiac events after discharge in either group. Conclusions-Use of a decision aid in patients with chest pain increased knowledge and engagement in decision making and decreased the rate of observation unit admission for stress testing.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Remediation of residents is a common problem and requires organized, goal-directed efforts to solve. The Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) has created a task force to identify best practices for remediation and to develop guidelines for resident remediation. Faculty members of CORD volunteered to participate in periodic meetings, organized discussions and literature reviews to develop overall guidelines for resident remediation and in a collaborative authorship of this article identifying best practices for remediation. The task force recommends that residency programs:1. Make efforts to understand the challenges of remediation, and recognize that the goal is successful correction of deficits, but that some deficits are not remediable. 2. Make efforts aimed at early identification of residents requiring remediation. 3. Create objective, achievable goals for remediation and maintain strict adherence to the terms of those plans, including planning for resolution when setting goals for remediation. 4. Involve the institution's Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC) early in remediation to assist with planning, obtaining resources, and documentation. 5. Involve appropriate faculty and educate those faculty into the role and terms of the specific remediation plan. 6. Ensure appropriate documentation of all stages of remediation. Resident remediation is frequently necessary and specific steps may be taken to justify, document, facilitate, and objectify the remediation process. Best practices for each step are identified and reported by the task force.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:S95-S103 ª