Procedural skills quality assurance among Australasian College for Emergency Medicine fellows and trainees

Abstract

Objective: Presently, no objective quality control mechanism exists for monitoring procedural skills among Australasian College for Emergency Medicine trainees. The present study examined trainee and fellow procedural experience and perceived competency, participation in accredited training courses and support for a procedural logbook. Methods: A cross-sectional mail survey of Australasian College for Emergency Medicine advanced trainees and fellows was performed. Experience and perceived competency in 23 common and important ED procedures were examined. Results: In total, 202 fellows and 264 trainees responded (overall response rate 39.0%). Overall, fellow procedural experience and perceived competency were reasonable. However, some fellows had never performed a number of procedures including some common procedures (e.g. nasal packing, fracture reduction) and there were reports of 'very poor' competency for 17 (73.9%) procedures. Trainee experience and perceived competency were less than the fellows but showed similar patterns. Perceived numbers of each procedure required to achieve competency varied considerably between the procedures and among the respondents. However, there were no significant differences in the perceived numbers reported by the trainees and the fellows (P > 0.05). Variable proportions of trainees and fellows had undertaken courses that incorporated procedural skills training. More fellows (75.7%, 95% confidence interval 69.1-81.4) than trainees (59.9%, 95% confidence interval 53.6-65.8) supported the use of a procedural logbook (P = 0.003). Conclusions: Lack of experience in some procedures among some fellows, especially commonly performed procedures, might represent a deficiency in existing quality assurance mechanisms for procedural skills training. Greater participation in skills courses, to improve experience in difficult and uncommonly encountered procedures, is recommended. Improved quality assurance mechanisms, including a procedural logbook, should be considered. © 2006 The Authors.