Abstract Background Emergency medicine (EM) is commonly introduced in the fourth year of medical school because of a perceived need to have more experienced students in the complex and dynamic ...environment of the emergency department. However, there is no evidence supporting the optimal time or duration for an EM rotation, and a number of institutions offer third-year rotations. Objective A recently published syllabus provides areas of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that third-year EM rotation directors can use to develop curricula. This article expands on that syllabus by providing a comprehensive curricular guide for the third-year medical student rotation with a focus on implementation. Discussion Included are consensus-derived learning objectives, discussion of educational methods, considerations for implementation, and information on feedback and evaluation as proposed by the Clerkship Directors in Emergency Medicine Third-Year Curriculum Work Group. External validation results, derived from a survey of third-year rotation directors, are provided in the form of a content validity index for each content area. Conclusions This consensus-derived curricular guide can be used by faculty who are developing or revising a third-year EM medical student rotation and provide guidance for implementing this curriculum at their institution.
Abstract Background Emergency Medicine (EM) clerkships traditionally assess students using numerical ratings of clinical performance. The descriptive ratings of the Reporter, Interpreter, Manager, ...and Educator (RIME) method have been shown to be valuable in other specialties. Objectives We hypothesized that the RIME descriptive ratings would correlate with clinical performance and examination scores in an EM clerkship, indicating that the RIME ratings are a valid measure of performance. Methods This was a prospective cohort study of an evaluation instrument for 4th -year medical students completing an EM rotation. This study received exempt Institutional Review Board status. EM faculty and residents completed shift evaluation forms including both numerical and RIME ratings. Students completed a final examination. Mean scores for RIME and clinical evaluations were calculated. Linear regression models were used to determine whether RIME ratings predicted clinical evaluation scores or final examination scores. Results Four hundred thirty-nine students who completed the EM clerkship were enrolled in the study. After excluding items with missing data, there were 2086 evaluation forms (based on 289 students) available for analysis. There was a clear positive relationship between RIME category and clinical evaluation score ( r2 = 0.40, p < 0.01). RIME ratings correlated most strongly with patient management skills and least strongly with humanistic qualities. A very weak correlation was seen with RIME and final examination. Conclusion We found a positive association between RIME and clinical evaluation scores, suggesting that RIME is a valid clinical evaluation instrument. RIME descriptive ratings can be incorporated into EM evaluation instruments and provides useful data related to patient management skills.
Study objective Laboratory evidence indicates that progesterone has potent neuroprotective effects. We conducted a pilot clinical trial to assess the safety and potential benefit of administering ...progesterone to patients with acute traumatic brain injury. Methods This phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at an urban Level I trauma center. One hundred adult trauma patients who arrived within 11 hours of injury with a postresuscitation Glasgow Coma Scale score of 4 to 12 were enrolled with proxy consent. Subjects were randomized on a 4:1 basis to receive either intravenous progesterone or placebo. Blinded observers assessed patients daily for the occurrence of adverse events and signs of recovery. Neurologic outcome was assessed 30 days postinjury. The primary safety measures were differences in adverse event rates and 30-day mortality. The primary measure of benefit was the dichotomized Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended 30 days postinjury. Results Seventy-seven patients received progesterone; 23 received placebo. The groups had similar demographic and clinical characteristics. Laboratory and physiologic characteristics were similar at enrollment and throughout treatment. No serious adverse events were attributed to progesterone. Adverse and serious adverse event rates were similar in both groups, except that patients randomized to progesterone had a lower 30-day mortality rate than controls (rate ratio 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.99). Thirty days postinjury, the majority of severe traumatic brain injury survivors in both groups had relatively poor Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended and Disability Rating Scale scores. However, moderate traumatic brain injury survivors who received progesterone were more likely to have a moderate to good outcome than those randomized to placebo. Conclusion In this small study, progesterone caused no discernible harm and showed possible signs of benefit.
We developed comprehensive models to determine risk of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) based on genetic and non-genetic factors.
We used pooled data from 3288 patients ...with BE, 2511 patients with EAC, and 2177 individuals without either (controls) from participants in the international Barrett’s and EAC consortium as well as the United Kingdom’s BE gene study and stomach and esophageal cancer study. We collected data on 23 genetic variants associated with risk for BE or EAC, and constructed a polygenic risk score (PRS) for cases and controls by summing the risk allele counts for the variants weighted by their natural log-transformed effect estimates (odds ratios) extracted from genome-wide association studies. We also collected data on demographic and lifestyle factors (age, sex, smoking, body mass index, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Risk models with various combinations of non-genetic factors and the PRS were compared for their accuracy in identifying patients with BE or EAC using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis.
Individuals in the highest quartile of risk, based on genetic factors (PRS), had a 2-fold higher risk of BE (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.89–2.60) or EAC (odds ratio, 2.46; 95% confidence interval, 2.07–2.92) than individual in the lowest quartile of risk based on PRS. Risk models developed based on only demographic or lifestyle factors or GERD symptoms identified patients with BE or EAC with AUC values ranging from 0.637 to 0.667. Combining data on demographic or lifestyle factors with data on GERD symptoms identified patients with BE with an AUC of 0.793 and patients with EAC with an AUC of 0.745. Including PRSs with these data only minimally increased the AUC values for BE (to 0.799) and EAC (to 0.754). Including the PRSs in the model developed based on non-genetic factors resulted in a net reclassification improvement for BE of 3.0% and for EAC of 5.6%.
We used data from 3 large databases of patients from studies of BE or EAC to develop a risk prediction model based on genetic, clinical, and demographic/lifestyle factors. We identified a PRS that increases discrimination and net reclassification of individuals with vs without BE and EAC. However, the absolute magnitude of improvement is not sufficient to justify its clinical use.
PDF
