Use of a Simulation Laboratory to Train Radiology Residents in the Management of Acute Radiologic Emergencies
ABSTRACT Simulation laboratories use realistic clinical scenarios to train physicians in a controlled environment, especially in potentially life-threatening complications that require prompt management. The objective of our study was to develop a comprehensive program using the simulation laboratory to train radiology residents in the management of acute radiologic emergencies.
All radiology residents attended a dedicated simulation laboratory course lasting 3 hours, divided over two sessions. Training included basic patient management skills, management of a tension pneumothorax, massive hemorrhage, and contrast agent reactions. Participants were presented with 20 multiple-choice questions before and after the course. Pre- and posttest results were analyzed, and the McNemar test was used to compare correct responses by individual question.
Twenty-six radiology residents attended the class. The average pre- and posttest scores and the average difference between the scores for all residents were 13.8, 17.1, and 3.3, respectively (p < 0.0001). Incorrect answers on the pretest examination that were subsequently answered correctly concerned administration of epinephrine for severe reactions, management of a tension pneumothorax, oxygen therapy, ECG placement, cardiopulmonary resuscitation technique, and where to stand during a code situation. Persistent incorrect answers concerned vasovagal reactions and emergency telephone numbers at an off-site imaging center.
Simulation laboratories can be used to teach crisis management and crisis resource management for radiology residents and should be part of the education toolbox. Defined objectives lead to a comprehensive course dealing with the management of acute radiologic emergencies. Such programs can improve the role of radiologists as members of the health care team.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose Radiologists could improve their knowledge of contrast reaction management. The aim of this study was to evaluate to what degree the implementation of a didactic module resulted in improved technologist, nurse, and physician knowledge and comfort levels regarding the appropriate management of adverse reactions to contrast media. Methods After institutional review board approval was obtained, nurses, technologists, and physicians involved in contrast administration were required to complete the educational module. Premodule and postmodule assessments were designed online. Each assessment included knowledge-based questions regarding the appropriate management of different types of contrast reactions, as well as questions regarding each respondent's comfort level with the treatment of various types of adverse contrast reactions. Comfort level was measured using a 6-point, Likert-type scale. Premodule and postmodule assessment scores were compared using McNemar's test. Results After module completion, physicians demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in knowledge regarding the proper administration route, concentration, and dose of intramuscular epinephrine. Physicians demonstrated significantly increased comfort with the administration of intramuscular epinephrine to adult and pediatric patients after module completion (P < .05). Module completion resulted in statistically significant improvements in respondents' comfort levels with the treatment of an adverse reaction to contrast media, although 19% of personnel still reported feeling uncomfortable after completing the module. Conclusions Didactic instruction in contrast reaction management results in improved knowledge and comfort levels for physicians, nurses, and technologists. However, a significant percentage of personnel still reported feeling uncomfortable treating an adverse contrast reaction after module completion, suggesting that didactic instruction alone may be inadequate.Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 01/2013; 11(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.06.006 · 2.28 Impact Factor
- American Journal of Roentgenology 05/2013; 200(5):W536. DOI:10.2214/AJR.12.10091 · 2.74 Impact Factor
Article: Reply.American Journal of Roentgenology 05/2013; 200(5):W537. DOI:10.2214/AJR.12.10285 · 2.74 Impact Factor