Impact of Risk and Volume on Procedural Traning of Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellows

Jeremy B Richards; Dru Claar; Michael T McCurdy; Nirav G Shah; Jakob I McSparron; Nitin Seam

doi:10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0110OC

Impact of Risk and Volume on Procedural Traning of Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellows

ATS Sch. 2021 Feb 11;2(2):212-223. doi: 10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0110OC. eCollection 2021 Jun.

Authors

Jeremy B Richards¹, Dru Claar², Michael T McCurdy³, Nirav G Shah³, Jakob I McSparron², Nitin Seam⁴

Affiliations

¹ Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
² Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
³ Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and.
⁴ Critical Care Medicine Department, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

Abstract

Background: Invasive procedures are a core aspect of pulmonary and critical care practice. Procedures performed in the intensive care unit can be divided into high-risk, low-volume (HRLV) procedures and low-risk, high-volume (LRHV) procedures. HRLV procedures include cricothyroidotomy, pericardiocentesis, Blakemore tube placement, and bronchial blocker placement. LRHV procedures include arterial line placement, central venous catheter placement, thoracentesis, and flexible bronchoscopy. Despite the frequency and importance of procedures in critical care medicine, little is known about the similarities and differences in procedural training between different Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) and Critical Care Medicine (CCM) training programs. Furthermore, differences in procedural training practices for HRLV and LRHV procedures have not previously been described.

Objective: To assess procedural training practices in PCCM and CCM fellowship programs in the United States, and compare differences in training between HRLV and LRHV procedures.

Methods: A novel survey instrument was developed and disseminated to PCCM and CCM program directors and associate program directors at PCCM and CCM fellowship programs in the United States to assess procedural teaching practices for HRLV and LRHV procedures.

Results: The survey was sent to 221 fellowship programs, 168 PCCM and 34 CCM, with 70 unique respondents (31.7% response rate). Of the procedural educational strategies assessed, each strategy was used significantly more frequently for LRHV versus HRLV procedures. The majority of respondents (51.1%) report having no dedicated training for HRLV procedures versus 6.9% reporting no dedicated training for any LRHV procedure (P < 0.001). For HRLV procedures, 76.9% of respondents indicated that there was no set number of procedures required to determine competency, versus 25.3% for LRHV procedures (P < 0.001). For LRHV procedures, fellows were allowed to perform procedures independently without supervision 21.7% of the time versus 3.9% for HRLV procedures (P = 0.004). Program directors' confidence in their ability to determine fellows' competence in performing procedures was significantly lower for HRLV versus LRHV versus HRLV procedures (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Significant differences exist in procedural training education for PCCM and CCM fellows for LRHV versus HRLV procedures, and awareness of this discrepancy presents an opportunity to address this educational gap in PCCM and CCM fellowship training.

Keywords: critical care; graduate medical education; risk evaluation and mitigation; teaching.