Purpose: Acute radiologic emergencies, primarily severe contrast reactions, are rare but life-threatening events. Given a generalized paucity of formalized or mandated training, studies have shown that radiologists and trainees perform poorly when acutely managing such events. Moreover, skill base, knowledge, and comfort levels precipitously decline over time given the infrequent occurrence of these events during one's daily practice. The primary aim of this study was to assess radiologists' preparedness for managing acute radiologic emergencies and to determine the efficacy of a high-fidelity simulation based training model in an effort to provide a rationale for similar programs to be implemented on a provincial or national level.
Methods: This was a prospective, observational study of radiology residents and attending radiologists throughout the province who were recruited to attend a full-day simulation-based course presenting various cases of acute radiologic emergencies. Participant demographics were collected at the time of commencement of the workshop. Course materials were disseminated 4 weeks prior to the workshop, and a 17-question knowledge quiz was administered before and after the workshop. Likert-type questionnaires were also distributed to survey comfort levels and equipment familiarity. The knowledge quiz and questionnaire were redistributed at 3- and 6-month intervals for acquisition of follow-up data.
Results: A total of 14 attending radiologists and 7 residents attended the workshop, with all participants completing the preworkshop questionnaire and 90.5% (19 of 21) completing the post-workshop questionnaire. Participants' principle locations of practice were as follows: academic institutions (50%), community hospitals (36.9%), and private clinics (13.1%). A significant increase in knowledge was demonstrated, with average scores of 10 out of 17 (59%) and 14.5 out of 17 (85%) (P < .001) before and after the workshop, respectively. A significant increase in participants' comfort levels in recognizing acute anaphylactic reactions (3.5; 4.7, P < .001), commencing initial management for acute radiologic emergencies (3.3; 5.0, P < .001), and administering the correct dose for anaphylactic reactions (2.5; 4.8, P < .001) was also demonstrated. Moreover, participants became increasingly familiar with the contents and equipment found within contrast reaction kits (2.8; 3.8, P < .01). Repeat evaluations at 3 and 6 months found an average knowledge test score of 13.8 out of 17 (81%) and 10.8 out of 17 (64%), respectively. Comfort levels were also reassessed in recognizing acute anaphylactic reactions (4.5; 4.1), commencing initial management (4.0; 3.9) and administering the correct dose of medication (4.0; 3.7) at 3- and 6-month intervals.
Conclusions: Acute radiologic emergencies are rare but life-threatening events that require rapid diagnosis and treatment to mitigate associated morbidity and mortality. Simulation-based workshops are a highly efficacious training model to increase knowledge, comfort levels, and equipment familiarity for radiologists and trainees alike; however, retraining at regular intervals is required.
Keywords: Anaphylactic reaction; Anaphylaxis; Contrast reaction; Medical education; Radiology; Simulation based.
Copyright © 2018 Canadian Association of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.