• Catherine B Custalow, Jeffrey A Kline, John A Marx, and Michael R Baylor.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA. cbc3d@virginia.edu
• Acad Emerg Med. 2002 Jun 1;9(6):575-86.

UnlabelledCertain resuscitative procedures can be lifesaving, but are performed infrequently by emergency medicine (EM) residents on human subjects. Alternative training methods for gaining procedural proficiency must be explored and tested.ObjectiveTo test whether animal laboratory training (ALT) is associated with sustained improvement in procedural competency and speed.MethodsAfter watching an educational videotape of saphenous cutdown (SAPH), thoracotomy (THOR), and cricothyroidotomy (CRIC), EM residents were randomized to receive either a tutored ALT session on live anesthetized pigs (Group A) or no ALT session (Group B). Residents were tested six months later by performing procedures on live anesthetized pigs. Videotaped procedures were evaluated by blinded examiners for the number of critical steps, complications, and procedure times.ResultsGroup A (n = 10) achieved a higher number of critical steps compared with Group B (n = 8) for SAPH (15.4 +/- 0.7 vs. 9.0 +/- 1.8, p = 0.03) and THOR (17.4 +/- 0.6 vs. 12.3 +/- 1.6, p = 0.009), but not CRIC (18.1 +/- 0.4 vs. 16.2 +/- 1.0, p = 0.1). Group A completed procedures in less time than Group B for SAPH (Wilcoxon chi(2) = 4.0, p = 0.04) and THOR (chi(2) = 4.4, p = 0.04), but not CRIC (chi(2) = 0.9, p = 0.3). There was no difference in the number of complications for any of the procedures.ConclusionResidents with animal laboratory training six months prior to testing demonstrated improved procedural competency and speed in the performance of resuscitative procedures.

34 keywords...

hide…