Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of telementored instruction in bedside ultrasonography (US) using Google Glass. The authors sought to examine whether first-time US users could obtain adequate parasternal long axis (PSLA) views to approximate ejection fraction (EF) using Google Glass telementoring.Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. Eighteen second-year medical students were randomized into three groups and tasked with obtaining PSLA cardiac imaging. Group A received real-time telementored education through Google Glass via Google Hangout from a remotely located expert. Group B received bedside education from the same expert. Group C represented the control and received no instruction. Each subject was given 3 minutes to obtain a best PSLA cardiac imaging using a portable GE Vscan. Image clips obtained by each subject were stored. A second expert, blinded to instructional mode, evaluated images for adequacy and assigned an image quality rating on a 0 to 10 scale.Results: Group A was able to obtain adequate images six out of six times (100%) with a median image quality rating of 7.5 (interquartile range [IQR] = 6 to 10) out of 10. Group B was also able to obtain adequate views six out of six times (100%), with a median image quality rating of 8 (IQR = 7 to 9). Group C was able to obtain adequate views one out of six times (17%), with a median image quality of 0 (IQR = 0 to 2). There were no statistically significant differences between Group A and Group B in the achievement of adequate images for E-point septal separation measurement or in image quality. Conclusions:In this pilot/feasibility study, novice US users were able to obtain adequate imaging to determine a healthy patient's EF through telementored education using Google Glass. These preliminary data suggest telementoring as an adequate means of medical education in bedside US. This conclusion will need to be validated with larger, more powerful studies including evaluation of pathologic findings and varying body habitus among models.

The Early Literacy Screener (ELS) is a brief screen for emergent literacy delays in 4- and 5-year-olds. Standard developmental screens may also flag these children. What is the value of adding the ELS? Parents of children aged 4 (n = 45) and 5 (n = 26) years completed the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3 (ASQ-3), the Survey of Well-Being in Young Children (SWYC), and the ELS. Rates of positive agreement (PA), negative agreement (NA), and overall agreement (Cohen's κ) across the various screening tools were calculated. Early literacy delays were detected in 51% of those who passed the ASQ and 38% of those who passed the SWYC. For ELS versus ASQ, κ = 0.18, PA = 0.36 (95% CI = 0.23-0.51), and NA = 0.83 (95% CI = 0.66-0.92). For ELS versus SWYC, κ = 0.42, PA = 0.61 (95% CI = 0.45-0.75), and NA = 0.82 (95% CI = 0.65-0.92). The ELS adds value by flagging early literacy delays in many children who pass either the ASQ-3 or SWYC.

BackgroundBecause of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Residency Review Committee (RRC) approval timelines, new residency programs cannot use Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) during their first year of applicants.AimWe sought to identify differences between program directors’ subjective ratings of applicants from an emergency medicine (EM) residency program’s first year (in which ERAS was not used) to their ratings of applicants the following year in which ERAS was used.MethodThe University of Utah Emergency Medicine Residency Program received approval from the ACGME in 2004. Applicants for the entering class of 2005 (year 1) did not use ERAS, submitting a separate application, while those applying for the following year (year 2) used ERAS. Residency program directors rated applicants using subjective components of their applications, assigning scores on scales from 0–10 or 0–5 (10 or 5 = highest score) for select components of the application. We retrospectively reviewed and compared these ratings between the 2 years of applicants.ResultsA total of 130 and 458 prospective residents applied during year 1 and year 2, respectively. Applicants were similar in average scores for research (1.65 vs. 1.81, scale 0–5, p = 0.329) and volunteer work (5.31 vs. 5.56, scale 0–10, p = 0.357). Year 1 applicants received higher scores for their personal statement (3.21 vs. 2.22, scale 0–5, p < 0.001), letters of recommendation (7.0 vs. 5.94, scale 0–10, p < 0.001), dean’s letter (3.5 vs. 2.7, scale 1–5, p < 0.001), and in their potential contribution to class characteristics (4.64 vs. 3.34, scale 0–10, p < 0.001).ConclusionWhile the number of applicants increased, the use of ERAS in a new residency program did not improve the overall subjective ratings of residency applicants. Year 1 applicants received higher scores for the written components of their applications and in their potential contributions to class characteristics.

No abstract

No abstract