We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Comparison of perceived and actual times spent by residents performing ultrasound examinations on patients.
Academic Emergency Medicine 2003 April
UNLABELLED: Emergency medicine (EM) ultrasonography (US) has become a part of residency education. More residents will be taking time during their shifts to perform bedside US examinations for educational purposes, thus further challenging time resources.
OBJECTIVES: The authors' hypothesis was that EM residents could accurately estimate the amount of time spent on an US examination of a patient, thus being able to determine when too much time is being taken away from other duties.
METHODS: The authors performed a prospective, single-blind observational study over a four-month period of EM residents at a large community hospital emergency department (ED) with an EM residency program. When a study physician was present, residents were observed and timed from plugging in the machine to turning it off. The residents, who were not aware of the study, were then asked how long the examination had taken. The true scan time, perceived scan time by the resident, and whether the department was busy or not were recorded on standardized quality assurance data sheets by the study physician. When all beds in the department were occupied, the ED was considered to be busy; otherwise, it was noted as not busy. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, paired Student's t-test to compare perceived and actual scan times, and correlation analysis to evaluate for any effect of how busy the ED was on accuracy of perceived times.
RESULTS: Ninety-three observations were made on 17 different residents. The mean perceived time of examinations was 8 min 12 sec (95% CI = 6:42 to 9:42); the mean actual time was 9 min 53 sec (95% CI = 8:29 to 11:18). The difference of 1 min 42 sec (95% CI = 0:37 to 2:47) yielded a p = 0.003. Residents underestimated the time spent on the scan 64 of 93 (69%) times. How busy the ED was did not affect accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, residents underestimated the amount of time spent performing an ultrasound examination. The small difference between the actual and perceived scan times was statistically significant; the clinical significance of this time difference is not known.
OBJECTIVES: The authors' hypothesis was that EM residents could accurately estimate the amount of time spent on an US examination of a patient, thus being able to determine when too much time is being taken away from other duties.
METHODS: The authors performed a prospective, single-blind observational study over a four-month period of EM residents at a large community hospital emergency department (ED) with an EM residency program. When a study physician was present, residents were observed and timed from plugging in the machine to turning it off. The residents, who were not aware of the study, were then asked how long the examination had taken. The true scan time, perceived scan time by the resident, and whether the department was busy or not were recorded on standardized quality assurance data sheets by the study physician. When all beds in the department were occupied, the ED was considered to be busy; otherwise, it was noted as not busy. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, paired Student's t-test to compare perceived and actual scan times, and correlation analysis to evaluate for any effect of how busy the ED was on accuracy of perceived times.
RESULTS: Ninety-three observations were made on 17 different residents. The mean perceived time of examinations was 8 min 12 sec (95% CI = 6:42 to 9:42); the mean actual time was 9 min 53 sec (95% CI = 8:29 to 11:18). The difference of 1 min 42 sec (95% CI = 0:37 to 2:47) yielded a p = 0.003. Residents underestimated the time spent on the scan 64 of 93 (69%) times. How busy the ED was did not affect accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, residents underestimated the amount of time spent performing an ultrasound examination. The small difference between the actual and perceived scan times was statistically significant; the clinical significance of this time difference is not known.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app