132 Faculty Procedural Skills in Academic Emergency Medicine: A Multisite Survey

Abstract

Emergency physicians must be competent to perform numerous procedures. It is unclear if clinical practice alone is sufficient to maintain procedural skills, particularly for academic faculty who supervise trainees. Formal assessment of procedural skills beyond training is uncommon. There is a paucity of literature on faculty skills attrition or their preferences for skills maintenance. The faculty procedural skills (FPS) survey sought to determine faculty attitudes, beliefs and experience with procedures to inform programming aimed at skills maintenance. This was a multisite, cross-sectional study of emergency medicine (EM) and pediatric EM (PEM) physician faculty at five large US academic EM departments. Subjects were board certified or board eligible in EM or PEM and provided both clinical care and supervision of trainees. Subjects completed the FPS survey online which consisted of three sections: (1) respondent characteristics and experience performing and supervising EM procedures; (2) degree of confidence performing critical procedures; and (3) attitudes about skills attrition and learning preferences. Internal consistency of each survey section was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. Items related to beliefs and attitudes were graded on a 5-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), with higher values representing greater agreement. Response agreement (with 95% confidence interval [CI]) was calculated by combining “strongly disagree” with “disagree” and “strongly agree” with “agree” responses. A total of 186 faculty completed the survey (44% response rate). Scale reliability was good (Cronbach’s alpha performance = 0.82; supervision = 0.86; confidence = 0.85). All respondents agreed that ongoing procedural skills training is important for the clinical practice of EM. The majority of respondents agreed: that faculty should have opportunities to retrain for uncommon procedures (98%, 95% CI: ±2%); that skills attrition is a concerning problem (91%, 95% CI: ± 4.1%); that skills attrition is a patient safety issue (89%, 95% CI: ± 4.5%); that attrition was more likely in academic settings (93%, 95% CI: ± 3.7%); that faculty should be required to demonstrate procedural competence (83%, 95% CI: ± 5.4%). The majority of respondents (73%, 95% CI: ± 6.4%) personally experienced procedural skill attrition and a similar number (68%, 95% CI: ± 6.7%) observed it in peers. The most preferred method for skills maintenance was simulation (83%, 95% CI: ± 5.4%). The most preferred learning environment was in groups with peers (89%, 95% CI: ± 4.5%). A majority of faculty reported skills attrition, both personally and observed in peers. Respondents also overwhelmingly agreed they should be competent to perform procedures for which they are credentialed. These findings raise questions about the need for technical skill competency assessments for continued clinical practice. Faculty preferred simulation-based learning and peer environments for skills maintenance. Further study is needed to determine the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of non-academic emergency physicians with procedural skills attrition.