RESUMEN
We report a case involving failed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulation in the setting of critical airway stenosis secondary to a large anterior mediastinal mass. The most invasive management option, ECMO, was initially pursued solely to avoid manipulation of a critical airway in case of intubation failure or life-threatening airway bleeding. However, after unexpectedly failing cannulation in two separate cannulation sites with an impending respiratory collapse, awake fiberoptic or emergent rigid bronchoscopy was the remaining viable option. The patient was ultimately intubated via awake fiberoptic intubation even though this modality carried a high complication risk and potential mortality if failed. This case report illustrates both the potential role of ECMO within the airway management hierarchy and the persistent need for contingency planning should ECMO cannulation fail. With the recent enthusiasm for ECMO incorporation into difficult airway management, our report serves to highlight the very serious issue of cannulation failure. There is a limited amount of case reports describing ECMO failure in a critical airway, and little has been described about rescue methods when ECMO fails. Our goal is to remind readers that although ECMO can be an excellent rescue option for a critically ill patient, it cannot be viewed as a last line of therapy. If one is able to rapidly recognize impending ECMO cannulation failure and is prepared for cannulation failure, they can save invaluable time in a decompensating patient.
RESUMEN
Background: The events of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced the world to adopt telemedicine frameworks to comply with isolation and stay-at-home regulations. Telemedicine, in various forms, has been used by patients and medical professionals for quite some time, especially telepsychiatry. To examine the efficacy and role of telesimulation as a method to educate health sciences students via telepresence robots. The study recruited students from the above health science disciplines. All participants were trained to administer a contextual interview to a standardized patient (SP) for mental health concerns. Methods: The completion of the contextual interview observation form adult (CIOF-A), National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index, self-efficacy in patient centeredness questionnaire (SEPCQ), and communication skills attitude scale with or without a telepresence robot. All participants completed baseline metrics and were trained to conduct a contextual interview to an SP. Researchers block-randomized the participants to either the telepresence robot group (TP) or in-person (IP) group. Results: The study recruited n = 43 participants to the IP group (n = 21) or TP group (n = 22). Mean participant demographics of age were 25.3 (±1.9) years in the IP group and 24.3 (±2.1) years for the TP group. Mean and standard deviation scores with effect sizes in CIOF-A scores IP: 0.05 (±1.91) and TP: -0.45 (±1.71), Cohen's d = 0.28; SEPCQ-Patient Domain scores IP: 0.42 (±4.69) and TP: 0.50 (±7.18), Cohen's d = 0.01; change in SEPCQ-Sharing Domain scores IP: 0.53 (±5.10) and TP: 0.91 (±9.98), Cohen's d = 0.05. These effect sizes will inform future studies and appropriate sample sizes. Conclusion: These data indicate that health sciences students utilizing a telepresence robot in an SP scenario to perform a behavioral health screening felt as comfortable and competent as those health sciences students performing the same behavioral health screening in person. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03661372.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Robótica , Telemedicina , Adulto , Escolaridad , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Recently, the American College of Graduate Medical Education included medical decision-making as a core competency in several specialties. To date, the ability to demonstrate and measure a pedagogical evolution of medical judgment in a medical education program has been limited. In this study, we aim to examine differences in medical decision-making of physician groups in distinctly different stages of their postgraduate career. METHODS: The study recruited physicians with a wide spectrum of disciplines and levels of experience to take part in 4 medical simulations divided into 2 categories, abdominal pain (biliary colic [BC] and renal colic [RC]) or chest pain (cardiac ischemia with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and pneumothorax [PTX]). Evaluation of medical decision-making used the Medical Judgment Metric (MJM). The targeted selection criteria for the physician groups are administrative physicians (APs), representing those with the most experience but whose current duties are largely administrative; resident physicians (RPs), those enrolled in postgraduate medical or surgical training; and mastery level physicians (MPs), those deemed to have mastery level experience. The study measured participant demographics, physiological responses, medical judgment scores, and simulation time to case resolution. Outcome differences were analyzed using Fisher exact tests with post hoc Bonferroni-adjusted z tests and single-factor analysis of variance F tests with post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference, as appropriate. The significance threshold was set at P < .05. Effect sizes were determined and reported to inform future studies. RESULTS: A total of n = 30 physicians were recruited for the study with n = 10 participants in each physician group. No significant differences were found in baseline demographics between groups. Analysis of simulations showed a significant (P = .002) interaction for total simulation time between groups RP: 6.2 minutes (±1.58); MP: 8.7 minutes (±2.46); and AP: 10.3 minutes (±2.78). The AP MJM scores, 12.3 (±2.66), for the RC simulation were significantly (P = .010) lower than the RP 14.7 (±1.15) and MP 14.7 (±1.15) MJM scores. Analysis of simulated patient outcomes showed that the AP group was significantly less likely to stabilize the participant in the RC simulation than MP and RP groups (P = .040). While not significant, all MJM scores for the AP group were lower in the BC, STEMI, and PTX simulations compared with the RP and MP groups. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians in distinctly different stages of their respective postgraduate career differed in several domains when assessed through a consistent high-fidelity medical simulation program. Further studies are warranted to accurately assess pedagogical differences over the medical judgment lifespan of a physician.