- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Diaz, Maria Carmen G."
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Does Length of Emergency Medicine Training Matter for Leadership Skills in Pediatric Resuscitation? A Pilot Study(2023-04-28) Schoppel, Kyle; Keilman, Ashley; Fayyaz, Jabeen; Padlipsky, Patricia; Diaz, Maria Carmen G.; Wing, Robyn; Hughes, Mary; Franco, Marleny; Swinger, Nathan; Whitfill, Travis; Walsh, BarbaraBackground The majority of pediatric patients in the United States (US) are evaluated and treated at general emergency departments (GEDs) that are often ill prepared for pediatric patients. Despite rotating at large pediatric hospitals, during training Emergency Medicine (EM) residents care perform few pediatric resuscitations. It is possible that discrepancies in length of EM residency training may allow for variable exposure to pediatric patients, critical resuscitations, and didactic events. The goal of this study was to compare leadership skills of EM residents graduating from 3 vs. 4-year programs during simulated pediatric resuscitations using a previously validated leadership assessment tool, the Concise Assessment of Leader Management (CALM). Methods This was a prospective, multicenter, simulation-based cohort pilot study that included graduating 3rd- and 4th-year EM resident physicians from 6 EM residency programs. We measured leadership performance across three simulated pediatric resuscitations using the CALM tool and compared leadership scores between the 3rd- vs. 4th-year resident cohorts. We also correlated leadership to self-efficacy scores. Results Forty-seven residents (24 3rd-year residents and 23 4th-year residents) participated. Out of a total possible CALM score of 66, residents from 3-year programs scored 45.2 [SD ± 5.2], 46.8 [SD ± 5.0], and 46.6 [SD ± 4.7], whereas residents from 4-year programs scored 45.5 [SD ± 5.2], 46.4 [SD ± 5.0], 48.2 [SD ± 4.3] during the sepsis, seizure and cardiac arrest cases respectively. The Total Leadership Score (TLS) for the 3-year cohort was 46.2 [SD ± 4.8] vs. 46.7 [ SD ± 4.5] (p = 0.715) for the 4-year cohort. Conclusions These data suggest there may be no difference in leadership skills between 3rd- vs 4th-year EM residents in our study cohort. This pilot study provides the basis of future work that will assess a larger multicenter cohort with the hope to obtain a more generalizable dataset.Item Preparedness for Pediatric Office Emergencies: A Multicenter, Simulation-Based Study(AAP, 2021-09) Abulebda, Kamal; Yuknis, Matthew L.; Whitfill, Travis; Montgomery, Erin E.; Pearson, Kellie J.; Rousseau, Rosa; Diaz, Maria Carmen G.; Brown, Linda L.; Wing, Robyn; Tay, Khoon-Yen; Good, Grace L.; Malik, Rabia N.; Garrow, Amanda L.; Zaveri, Pavan P.; Thomas, Eileen; Makharashvili, Ana; Burns, Rebekah A.; Lavoie, Megan; Auerbach, Marc A.; Improving Pediatric Acute Care Through Simulation (ImPACTS); Pediatrics, School of MedicineOBJECTIVES Pediatric emergencies can occur in pediatric primary care offices. However, few studies have measured emergency preparedness, or the processes of emergency care, provided in the pediatric office setting. In this study, we aimed to measure emergency preparedness and care in a national cohort of pediatric offices. METHODS This was a multicenter study conducted over 15 months. Emergency preparedness scores were calculated as a percentage adherence to 2 checklists on the basis of the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines (essential equipment and supplies and policies and protocols checklists). To measure the quality of emergency care, we recruited office teams for simulation sessions consisting of 2 patients: a child with respiratory distress and a child with a seizure. An unweighted percentage of adherence to checklists for each case was calculated. RESULTS Forty-eight teams from 42 offices across 9 states participated. The mean emergency preparedness score was 74.7% (SD: 12.9). The mean essential equipment and supplies subscore was 82.2% (SD: 15.1), and the mean policies and protocols subscore was 57.1% (SD: 25.6). Multivariable analyses revealed that independent practices and smaller total staff size were associated with lower preparedness. The median asthma case performance score was 63.6% (interquartile range: 43.2–81.2), whereas the median seizure case score was 69.2% (interquartile range: 46.2–80.8). Offices that had a standardized process of contacting emergency medical services (EMS) had a higher rate of activating EMS during the simulations. CONCLUSIONS Pediatric office preparedness remains suboptimal in a multicenter cohort, especially in smaller, independent practices. Academic and community partnerships using simulation can help address gaps and implement important processes like contacting EMS.Item Prevalence of Errors in Anaphylaxis in Kids (PEAK): A Multicenter Simulation-Based Study(Elsevier, 2020-04) Maa, Tensing; Scherzer, Daniel; Harwayne-Gidansky, Ilana; Capua, Tali; Kessler, David O.; Trainor, Jennifer L.; Jani, Priti; Damazo, Becky; Abulebda, Kamal; Diaz, Maria Carmen G.; Sharara-Chami, Rana; Srinivasan, Sushant; Zurca, Adrian; Deutsch, Ellen S.; Hunt, Elizabeth A.; Auerbach, Marc; Pediatrics, School of MedicineBackground Multi-institutional, international practice variation of pediatric anaphylaxis management by health care providers has not been reported. Objective To characterize variability in epinephrine administration for pediatric anaphylaxis across institutions, including frequency and types of medication errors. Methods A prospective, observational, study using a standardized in situ simulated anaphylaxis scenario was performed across 28 health care institutions in 6 countries. The on-duty health care team was called for a child (patient simulator) in anaphylaxis. Real medications and supplies were obtained from their actual locations. Demographic data about team members, institutional protocols for anaphylaxis, timing of epinephrine delivery, medication errors, and systems safety issues discovered during the simulation were collected. Results Thirty-seven in situ simulations were performed. Anaphylaxis guidelines existed in 41% (15 of 37) of institutions. Teams used a cognitive aid for medication dosing 41% (15 of 37) of the time and 32% (12 of 37) for preparation. Epinephrine autoinjectors were not available in 54% (20 of 37) of institutions and were used in only 14% (5 of 37) of simulations. Median time to epinephrine administration was 95 seconds (interquartile range, 77-252) for epinephrine autoinjector and 263 seconds (interquartile range, 146-407.5) for manually prepared epinephrine (P = .12). At least 1 medication error occurred in 68% (25 of 37) of simulations. Nursing experience with epinephrine administration for anaphylaxis was associated with fewer preparation (P = .04) and administration (P = .01) errors. Latent safety threats were reported by 30% (11 of 37) of institutions, and more than half of these (6 of 11) involved a cognitive aid. Conclusions A multicenter, international study of simulated pediatric anaphylaxis reveals (1) variation in management between institutions in the use of protocols, cognitive aids, and medication formularies, (2) frequent errors involving epinephrine, and (3) latent safety threats related to cognitive aids among multiple sites.