| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Pediatric Imaging |
1 From the Division of Pediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology (A.M.G., D.P.F., A.A.), and Division of Emergency Medicine, Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery (S.M.H., X.L., K.S.F.), Duke University Health Systems, 1905 McGovern-Davison Children's Health Center, Box 3808 DUMC, Durham, NC 27710; and Department of Radiology, Janeway Child Health Centre, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada (A.P.). Received August 9, 2006; revision requested October 12; revision received November 7; accepted December 18; final version accepted February 1, 2007. Address correspondence to A.M.G. (e-mail: ana.gaca{at}duke.edu).
Purpose: To prospectively develop and test a simulation model for assessing radiology resident preparedness for pediatric life-threatening events in the radiology environment.
Materials and Methods: This study was institutional review board approved. Nineteen radiology residents (10 men, nine women; mean age, 28.5 years) participated in two simulated contrast material reaction scenarios: one with and one without resuscitation aids available. Each resident examined and managed two mannequins—simulating a 1–2-year-old patient and an 8–9-year-old patient—for type, sequence, dose, and administration route for any intervention, including administering medication, calling a code team, and providing oxygen. The time to order each intervention was documented. Resident responses (time to order intervention, appropriateness of intervention, and intervention route) were evaluated. The paired t test was used to compare the time to intervention between the resuscitation-aid-available and resuscitation-aid-not-available scenarios and between the scenario performed first and the scenario performed second. The McNemar test was performed to compare the percentage of appropriate interventions between the two resuscitation aid scenarios.
Results: The average time to call the code team was shorter when no resuscitation aids were available than when resuscitation aids were available (98 vs 149 seconds, P = .08). The average times to request oxygen and epinephrine were shorter when resuscitation aids were available (40 vs 89 seconds to request oxygen, P = .016; 121 vs 163 seconds to request epinephrine, P = .21). Appropriate medication dosing was not significantly different between the two scenarios. In only five of the 38 simulated scenarios was calling the code team the first intervention. The correct sequence of interventions (calling code team, providing oxygen, and then providing epinephrine) was performed by only one resident in one scenario. Only five residents recognized that they were encountering a contrast material reaction.
Conclusion: Simulation training for radiology residents is valuable and suggests that resident preparedness for pediatric anaphylaxis from intravenous contrast media is insufficient. Clear step-by-step resuscitation aids are needed in the radiology environment.
© RSNA, 2007
Related Article
Radiology 2007 245: 7-9.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. L. Wang, R. H. Cohan, J. H. Ellis, E. M. Caoili, G. Wang, and I. R. Francis Frequency, Outcome, and Appropriateness of Treatment of Nonionic Iodinated Contrast Media Reactions Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): 409 - 415. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. J. Becker Simulation and the Coming Transformation of Medical Education and Training Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 7 - 9. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
