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

IntroductionAn important area of communication in healthcare is the consultation. Existing literature suggests that formal training in consultation communication is lacking. We aimed to conduct a targeted needs assessment of third-year students on their experience calling consultations, and based on these results, develop, pilot, and evaluate the effectiveness of a consultation curriculum for different learner levels that can be implemented as a longitudinal curriculum.MethodsBaseline needs assessment data were gathered using a survey completed by third-year students at the conclusion of the clinical clerkships. The survey assessed students’ knowledge of the standardized consultation, experience and comfort calling consultations, and previous instruction received on consultation communication. Implementation of the consultation curriculum began the following academic year. Second-year students were introduced to Kessler’s 5 Cs consultation model through a didactic session consisting of a lecture, viewing of “trigger” videos illustrating standardized and informal consults, followed by reflection and discussion. Curriculum effectiveness was assessed through pre- and post- curriculum surveys that assessed knowledge of and comfort with the consultation process. Fourth-year students participated in a consultation curriculum that provided instruction on the 5 Cs model and allowed for continued practice of consultation skills through simulation during the Emergency Medicine clerkship. Proficiency in consult communication in this cohort was assessed using two assessment tools, the Global Rating Scale and the 5 Cs Checklist.ResultsThe targeted needs assessment of third-year students indicated that 93% of students have called a consultation during their clerkships, but only 24% received feedback. Post-curriculum, second-year students identified more components of the 5 Cs model (4.04 vs. 4.81, p<0.001) and reported greater comfort with the consultation process (0% vs. 69%, p<0.001). Post- curriculum, fourth-year students scored higher in all criteria measuring consultation effectiveness (p<0.001 for all) and included more necessary items in simulated consultations (62% vs. 77%, p<0.001).ConclusionWhile third-year medical students reported calling consultations, few felt comfortable and formal training was lacking. A curriculum in consult communication for different levels of learners can improve knowledge and comfort prior to clinical clerkships and improve consultation skills prior to residency training.

Background This study used existing literature and expert feedback to develop and pilot a novel error‐avoidance checklist tool for cricothyrotomy in attending physicians. Prior literature has not focused on expert cricothyrotomy performance. While published checklists teach a specific procedural method, ideal for novice learners, this may hinder expert learners. Objectives We endeavored to create a succinct error‐avoidance checklist for cricothyrotomy. We hypothesized that such a checklist would prove feasible and acceptable to attending physicians. Methods This is a multicenter prospective checklist creation, evaluation, and feasibility study. Multiple experts pursued an iterative process to reach consensus on a 7‐item error‐avoidance checklist. The checklist was trialed for feasibility in pilot sessions at two sites by 45 attending emergency physicians who used the checklist for peer performance assessment and provided feedback. Results During the pilot implementation, 94% of respondents completed the procedure within the allotted 120 s. Greater than 85% of respondents agreed that four of the five procedural errors on the checklist were very or somewhat critical to avoid, including cutting >2 cm from midline, creating a false passage, failing to continuously maintain an object in the trachea, and injuring oneself during the procedure. Only 66% of participants felt severing the cricoid cartilage was critical. Successful breath administration and time under 120 s were critical for 100% and 95% of participants, respectively. The checklist was rated “easy” or “very easy” to use by 93% of participants, and 95% found this checklist reasonable for evaluating attending physicians. Conclusions We present the multicenter development and implementation of a novel error‐avoidance checklist tool for use in expert cricothyrotomy performance. Attending emergency medicine (EM) physicians rated our tool easy to use and agreed that most of the proposed errors were critical. Participants overwhelmingly agreed this tool would be reasonable for evaluation of cricothyrotomy performance among attending EM physicians.

The extent to which childrens's welfare is compromised when they do not attend compulsory prevention medical check-ups is yet to be determined. Together with the Hessen Prevention Center for Children (Hessisches Kindervorsorgezentrum), the Child Protection Services in the Main-Taunus district have conducted a study to investigate failure to attend child preventive examinations as a possible indication of risk to the welfare of such children. 605 notifications of child preventive examinations that were not carried out, sent in 2012 to the Child Protection Services by the Hessen Prevention Center for Children, were analyzed retrospectively. Each case was recorded using a standardized questionnaire and, cases that were passed on to General Social Services within Child Protection Services were investigated with an additional interview with the employee responsible. In 60 (10%) cases there was no certificate to show that the check-up had been conducted, while in 165 (27%) cases the check-up was conducted late, i. e. only after being contacted by the Child Protection Services. In 9 of the 605 cases (1.5%), the families involved were already known to Child Protection Services due to previous proceedings against them under endangering children's welfare act (known as § 8a cases). No new case of a risk to children's welfare was detected. In 58 cases, families gave reasons for the missed or late check-up. Reasons included being abroad and moving house (20 cases), forgetting (14 cases) and illness (11 cases), as well as lack of knowledge of the law (6 cases), lack of health insurance (4 cases), lack of language skills (2 cases) and objection to the law in principle (1 case). It was notable that, in 57% of the cases notified, documentary evidence could be provided by the end of the case work that the check-up had taken place within the recommended period (including additional discretionary period). The majority of these notifications of failure to attend can be prevented by an upstream clearing procedure.

Introduction According to the Institute of Medicine, 98,000 annual deaths are caused by preventable errors. Speaking up about patient safety or professionalism concerns when they arise allows medical staff to move from bystanders to active participants in the prevention of patient harm. This study assesses the current climate around speaking up for patient safety and unprofessional behavior by Emergency Medicine (EM) resident physicians and compares it to previously published data from other specialties. Methods A multi-site, descriptive, cross-sectional design was utilized based on previously published Speaking Up Climate Safety and Professionalism Scales. EM residents at 3 programs in the United States were surveyed, and their responses were compared to previously published responses from other specialties. Results 102 residents from 3 EM residency programs responded to the survey, yielding a response rate of 54.3%. Responses on the survey fell close to the neutral response (3 on a 5-point Likert scale) on all measures, indicating opportunity for improvement. However, EM responses were significantly more favorable than responses from other specialties on several questions. Conclusion This assessment demonstrates room for improvement on speaking up behaviors among EM residents but also suggests that unique features of EM may contribute to a relatively more positive speaking up climate compared to other specialties, which may inform strategies to increase speaking up behaviors. For example, deliberate practice of situations requiring strong teamwork and strategies to reduce traditional hierarchies may help emulate the climate that tends to occur organically in EM.