Objectives: Procedural competency is an essential prerequisite for the independent practice of emergency medicine. Multiple studies demonstrate that simulation-based procedural training (SBPT) is an effective method for acquiring and maintaining procedural competency and preferred over traditional paradigms ("see one, do one, teach one"). Although newer paradigms informing SBPT have emerged, educators often face circumstances that challenge and undermine their implementation. The goal of this paper is to identify and report on best practices and theory-supported solutions to some of these challenges as derived using a process of expert consensus building and reviews of the existing literature on SBPT.Methods: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Simulation Academy SBPT Workgroup convened approximately 8 months prior to the 2019 SAEM Annual Meeting to perform a review of the literature and participate in a consensus-building process to identify solutions (in the form of best practices and educational theory) to these challenges faced by educators engaging in SBPT.Results and Analysis: Thirteen distinct educational challenges to SBPT emerged from the expert group's primary literature reviews and consensus-building processes. Three domains emerged upon further analysis of the 13 challenges: learner, educator, and curriculum. Six challenges within the "learner" domain were selected for comprehensive discussion in this paper, as they were deemed representative of the most common and most significant threats to ideal SBPT. Each of the six challenges aligns with one of the following themes: 1) From the

Background:The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to traditional simulation education. Because simulation is considered best practice for competencybased education, emergency medicine (EM) residencies adapted and innovated to accommodate to the new pandemic normal. Our objectives were to identify the impact of the pandemic on EM residency simulation training, to identify unique simulation adaptations and innovations implemented during the pandemic, and to analyze successes and failures through existing educational frameworks to offer guidance on the use of simulation in the COVID-19 era. Methods: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM)'s SimulationAcademy formed the SimCOVID task force to examine the impact of COVID-19 on simulation didactics. A mixed-methods approach was employed. A literature search was conducted on the subject and used to develop an exploratory survey that was distributed on the Simulation Academy Listserv. The results were subjected to thematic analysis and examined through existing educational frameworks to better understand successes and failures and then used to generate suggestions on the use of simulation in the COVID-19 era.Results: Thirty programs responded to the survey. Strategies reported included adaptations to virtual teleconferencing and small-group in situ training with a focus on procedural training and COVID-19 preparedness. Successful continuation or relaunching of simulation programs was predicated on several factors including willingness for curricular pivots through rapid iterative prototyping, embracing teleconferencing software, technical know-how, and organizational and human capacity. In specific instances the use of in situ simulation for COVID-19 preparedness established the view of simulation as a "value add" to the organization. Conclusions:Whereas simulation educator's responses to the COVID-19 pandemic can be better appreciated through the lens of iterative curricular prototyping, their successes and failures depended on existing expertise in technological, pedagogical,

Background: There are known racial and socioeconomic disparities in the use of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI) for anaphylaxis. Objective: To measure the rates of EAI prescription filling and identify patient demographic factors associated with filling rates among patients discharged from the pediatric emergency department. Methods: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of all patients discharged from a pediatric emergency department who received an outpatient prescription for an EAI between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2019. The rates of prescription filling were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify sociodemographic factors associated with prescription filling. Results: Of 717 patients included in the analysis, 54.8% (95% confidence interval {CI}, 51.1%‐58.5%) filled their prescription. There were no significant associations between EAI fill rates and patient age or sex. In bivariable analysis, non-Hispanic white patients were more likely to fill EAI prescriptions compared with non-Hispanic Black patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.89 [95% CI, 1.11‐3.20]), and patients with in-state Medicaid were significantly less likely to fill EAI prescriptions compared with those patients with private insurance (OR 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48‐0.98]). However, after multivariable adjustment, there was no significant difference in filling by age, insurance status, or race or ethnicity. Conclusions: Only approximately half the patients had their EAI prescriptions filled after discharge. Filling rates did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics.

Objective: To compare radiation doses used for pediatric computed tomography (CT) scans at community-based referring facilities (RF) to those at a designated pediatric trauma center (PTC) to assess the consistency of radiation exposure. Methods:In this retrospective study, patients 0 to 18 years of age with CT imaging performed either at a RF or at a PTC from January 1, 2015, to January 5, 2016, were identified. Data about patients, CT radiation dose, and characteristics of the RFs were compared. Results:We identified 502 patients (156 RF, 346 PTC) with 281 head CTs (79 RF, 202 PTC) and 86 abdominal/pelvis CTs (28 RF, 58 PTC). The radiation dose (measured in mean dose-length product [DLP] ± 1 standard deviation) was significantly higher for RF scans compared with PTC scans (head, RF DLP = 545 ± 334 vs PTC DLP = 438 ± 186 (P < 0.001); abdomen/pelvis, RF DLP = 279 ± 160 vs PTC DLP = 181 ± 201 [P = 0.027]). There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower head CT radiation dosages at RFs with a dedicated pediatric emergency department compared with RFs without a pediatric emergency department.Conclusions: Our data suggest that CT scans performed at RFs expose pediatric patients to significantly higher doses of radiation when compared with a PTC. These data support further study to identify factors associated with increased radiation and educational outreach to RFs.

No abstract