Objective: Optimal training methods remain controversial for rarely performed emergency procedures. Previous research has failed to demonstrate the superiority or inferiority of live anesthetized animal models (LAA) as compared to other modalities. Most of the data on LAA use comes from military contexts; less information is available for civilian emergency medicine (EM) training. We sought to characterize the prevalence of LAA use among civilian EM residency programs and reasons for its use or discontinuation. Methods: Survey study of program directors of EM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. A 16-item questionnaire was electronically delivered to program directors, including program region, current and historical use of LAA, and attitudes regarding the optimal procedural training modalities. Results: Of 179 survey recipients, 83 completed the survey (46.4%). Twelve programs (14.3%) currently use LAA, and 17 programs (20.5%) report previous LAA use. Reasons for discontinuing LAA use included ethical concerns, financial and logistical limitations, political pressures, and feeling that there were superior or equivalent alternative models available. Programs that currently use LAA were more likely to rank LAA as being the most preferable training modality while programs that do not currently use LAA were more likely to rank human cadavers as the most preferable modality. Conclusion Despite a lack of data showing educational outcomes-driven differences between LAA and alternative training models, LAA use is declining among civilian EM residencies. Despite this, disagreement exists among programs that do and do not use LAA regarding the most optimal procedural training.

Objective: Optimal training methods remain controversial for rarely performed emergency procedures. Previous research has failed to demonstrate the superiority or inferiority of live anesthetized animal models (LAA) as compared to other modalities. Most of the data on LAA use comes from military contexts; less information is available for civilian emergency medicine (EM) training. We sought to characterize the prevalence of LAA use among civilian EM residency programs and reasons for its use or discontinuation. Methods: Survey study of program directors of EM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. A 16-item questionnaire was electronically delivered to program directors, including program region, current and historical use of LAA, and attitudes regarding the optimal procedural training modalities. Results: Of 179 survey recipients, 83 completed the survey (46.4%). Twelve programs (14.3%) currently use LAA, and 17 programs (20.5%) report previous LAA use. Reasons for discontinuing LAA use included ethical concerns, financial and logistical limitations, political pressures, and feeling that there were superior or equivalent alternative models available. Programs that currently use LAA were more likely to rank LAA as being the most preferable training modality while programs that do not currently use LAA were more likely to rank human cadavers as the most preferable modality. Conclusion Despite a lack of data showing educational outcomes-driven differences between LAA and alternative training models, LAA use is declining among civilian EM residencies. Despite this, disagreement exists among programs that do and do not use LAA regarding the most optimal procedural training.

Objective: Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation skills are of critical importance for diagnostic accuracy and patient safety. In our emergency department (ED), senior third-year emergency medicine residents (EM3s) are the initial interpreters of all ED ECGs. While this is an integral part of emergency medicine education, the accuracy of ECG interpretation is unknown. We aimed to review the adverse quality assurance (QA) events associated with ECG interpretation by EM3s. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of all ED ECGs performed between October 2015 and October 2018, which were read primarily by EM3s, at an urban tertiary care medical center treating 56,000 patients per year. All cases referred to the ED QA committee during this time were reviewed. Cases involving a perceived error were referred to a 20-member committee of ED leadership staff, attendings, residents, and nurses for further consensus review. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: EM3s read 92,928 ECGs during the study period. Of the 3,983 total ED QA cases reviewed, errors were identified in 268 (6.7%; 95% CI, 6.0%–7.6%). Four of the 268 errors involved ECG misinterpretation or failure to act on an ECG abnormality by a resident (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.0%–2.9%). Conclusion A small percentage of the cases referred to the QA committee were a result of EM3 misinterpretation of ECGs. The majority of emergency medicine residencies do not include the senior resident as a primary interpreter of ECGs. These findings support the use of EM3s as initial ED ECG interpreters to increase their clinical exposure.