Dataset Information

The impact of a multi-specialty team for high risk pulmonary embolism on resident and fellow education.

ABSTRACT: The impact of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) model on trainee physician education and autonomy over the management of high risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is unknown. A resident and fellow questionnaire was administered 1 year after PERT implementation. A total of 122 physicians were surveyed, and 73 responded. Even after 12 months of interacting with the PERT consultative service, and having formal instruction in high risk PE management, 51% and 49% of respondents underestimated the true 3-month mortality for sub-massive and massive PE, respectively, and 44% were unaware of a common physical exam finding in patients with PE. Comparing before and after PERT implementation, physicians perceived enhanced confidence in identifying ( p<0.001), and managing ( p=0.003) sub-massive/massive PE, enhanced confidence in treating patients appropriately with systemic thrombolysis ( p=0.04), and increased knowledge of indications for systemic thrombolysis and surgical embolectomy ( p=0.043 and p<0.001, respectively). Respondents self-reported an increased fund of knowledge of high risk PE pathophysiology (77%), and the perception that a multi-disciplinary team improves the care of patients with high risk PE (89%). Seventy-one percent of respondents favored broad implementation of a PERT similar to an acute myocardial infarction team. Overall, trainee physicians at a large institution perceived an enhanced educational experience while managing PE following PERT implementation, believing the team concept is better for patient care.

SUBMITTER: Elbadawi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6525006 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of a multi-specialty team for high risk pulmonary embolism on resident and fellow education.

Elbadawi Ayman A Wright Colin C Patel Dhwani D Chen Yu Lin YL Mazzillo Justin J Cameron Pamela P Barnes Geoffrey D GD Cameron Scott J SJ

Vascular medicine (London, England) 20180522 4

The impact of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) model on trainee physician education and autonomy over the management of high risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is unknown. A resident and fellow questionnaire was administered 1 year after PERT implementation. A total of 122 physicians were surveyed, and 73 responded. Even after 12 months of interacting with the PERT consultative service, and having formal instruction in high risk PE management, 51% and 49% of respondents underestimated the t ...[more]

PMID: 29786477

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo characterize the association between pulmonary embolism (PE) severity and bleeding risk with treatment approaches, outcomes, and complications.MethodsSecondary analysis of an 11-hospital registry of adult ED patients treated by a PE response team (August 2016-November 2022). Predictors were PE severity and bleeding risk. The primary outcome was treatment approach: anticoagulation monotherapy vs. advanced intervention (categorized as "immediate" or "delayed" based on whether the intervention was received within 12 hours of PE diagnosis or not). Secondary outcomes were death, clinical deterioration, and major bleeding.ResultsOf the 1832 patients, 139 (7.6%), 977 (53.3%), and 9 (0.5%) were classified as high-risk, intermediate-high, intermediate-low, and low-risk severity, respectively. There were 94 deaths (5.1%) and 218 patients (11.9%) had one or more clinical deterioration events. Advanced interventions were administered to 86 (61.9%), 195 (27.6%), and 109 (11.2%) patients with high-risk, intermediate-high, and intermediate-low severity, respectively.Major bleeding occurred in 61/1440 (4.2%) on ACm versus 169/392 (7.6%) with advanced interventions (p <0.001): bleeding withcatheter-directed thrombolysiswas 19/145 (13.1%) versus 33/154(21.4%) with systemic thrombolysis,p= 0.07. High risk was twice as strong as intermediate-high risk for association with advanced intervention (OR: 5.3 (4.2 and 6.9) vs. 1.9 (1.6 and 2.2)). High risk (OR: 56.3 (32.0 and 99.2) and intermediate-high risk (OR: 2.6 (1.7 and 4.0)) were strong predictors of clinical deterioration. Major bleeding was significantly associated with advanced interventions (OR: 5.2 (3.5 and 7.8) for immediate, 3.3 (1.8 and 6.2)) for delayed, and high-risk PE severity (OR: 3.4 (1.9 and 5.8)).ConclusionsAdvanced intervention use was associated with high-acuity patients experiencing death, clinical deterioration, and major bleeding with a trend towards less bleeding with catheter-directed interventions versus systemic thrombolysis.

Dataset Information

The impact of a multi-specialty team for high risk pulmonary embolism on resident and fellow education.

Publications

The impact of a multi-specialty team for high risk pulmonary embolism on resident and fellow education.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets