The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists held its State Legislative Roundtable in late October in Arlington, Va., with ob.gyns. and their lobbyists from 46 states. This is the largest number of states ever represented at the roundtable event, and it reflects the increased participation and engagement in policy making by women’s health care providers.

Dr. Bohon is an ob.gyn. in private practice in Washington. She is an ACOG state legislative chair from the District of Columbia and a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board. She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists held its State Legislative Roundtable in late October in Arlington, Va., with ob.gyns. and their lobbyists from 46 states. This is the largest number of states ever represented at the roundtable event, and it reflects the increased participation and engagement in policy making by women’s health care providers.

Dr. Bohon is an ob.gyn. in private practice in Washington. She is an ACOG state legislative chair from the District of Columbia and a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board. She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists held its State Legislative Roundtable in late October in Arlington, Va., with ob.gyns. and their lobbyists from 46 states. This is the largest number of states ever represented at the roundtable event, and it reflects the increased participation and engagement in policy making by women’s health care providers.

Dr. Bohon is an ob.gyn. in private practice in Washington. She is an ACOG state legislative chair from the District of Columbia and a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board. She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – When treating patients with psoriasis, “it is very important for us to treat the entire patient,” and consider the comorbidities, including depression, associated with psoriasis, Jeffrey M. Sobell, MD, said in a video interview at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Depression can be a particular concern for younger patients with more severe psoriasis, said Dr. Sobell of Tufts University, Boston.

When he sees patients aged 18-35 years with significant psoriasis in his practice, he has made it a habit to ask them about depression “and if they’ve ever had thoughts of hurting themselves,” and arranges for mental health follow-up visits for patients about whom he is concerned. “It’s something that’s hard to talk about, but so important,” he said.

Dr. Sobell disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – When treating patients with psoriasis, “it is very important for us to treat the entire patient,” and consider the comorbidities, including depression, associated with psoriasis, Jeffrey M. Sobell, MD, said in a video interview at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Depression can be a particular concern for younger patients with more severe psoriasis, said Dr. Sobell of Tufts University, Boston.

When he sees patients aged 18-35 years with significant psoriasis in his practice, he has made it a habit to ask them about depression “and if they’ve ever had thoughts of hurting themselves,” and arranges for mental health follow-up visits for patients about whom he is concerned. “It’s something that’s hard to talk about, but so important,” he said.

Dr. Sobell disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – When treating patients with psoriasis, “it is very important for us to treat the entire patient,” and consider the comorbidities, including depression, associated with psoriasis, Jeffrey M. Sobell, MD, said in a video interview at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Depression can be a particular concern for younger patients with more severe psoriasis, said Dr. Sobell of Tufts University, Boston.

When he sees patients aged 18-35 years with significant psoriasis in his practice, he has made it a habit to ask them about depression “and if they’ve ever had thoughts of hurting themselves,” and arranges for mental health follow-up visits for patients about whom he is concerned. “It’s something that’s hard to talk about, but so important,” he said.

Dr. Sobell disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

TORONTO – No long-term safety signals were seen in a randomized trial that tested the formoterol fumarate inhalation solution (Perforomist, Mylan) against placebo in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Safety was confirmed despite patients being permitted to remain on other background treatment for COPD, including inhaled corticosteroids and anticholinergics, in this study presented at the CHEST annual meeting. An additional benefit of the therapy was that it significantly improved lung function from baseline, according to some spirometry measures.

Debra L. Beck/Frontline Medical News

TORONTO – No long-term safety signals were seen in a randomized trial that tested the formoterol fumarate inhalation solution (Perforomist, Mylan) against placebo in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Safety was confirmed despite patients being permitted to remain on other background treatment for COPD, including inhaled corticosteroids and anticholinergics, in this study presented at the CHEST annual meeting. An additional benefit of the therapy was that it significantly improved lung function from baseline, according to some spirometry measures.

Debra L. Beck/Frontline Medical News

TORONTO – No long-term safety signals were seen in a randomized trial that tested the formoterol fumarate inhalation solution (Perforomist, Mylan) against placebo in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Safety was confirmed despite patients being permitted to remain on other background treatment for COPD, including inhaled corticosteroids and anticholinergics, in this study presented at the CHEST annual meeting. An additional benefit of the therapy was that it significantly improved lung function from baseline, according to some spirometry measures.

Debra L. Beck/Frontline Medical News

Patients who undergo interhospital transfer (IHT) are felt to benefit from receipt of unique specialty care at the receiving hospital.¹ Although only 1.5% of all hospitalized Medicare patients undergo hospital transfer,² the frequency of transfer is much greater within certain patient populations, as may be expected with diagnoses requiring specialty care.^3,4 Existent data demonstrate that 5% of Medicare patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU)⁵ and up to 50% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergo IHT.⁶

More recent data suggest variability in hospital transfer practices not accounted for by differences in patient or hospital characteristics.² Although disease-specific guidelines for IHT exist for certain diagnoses,^3,4 the process remains largely nonstandardized for many patients,⁷ leading to ambiguity surrounding indications for transfer. Because limited data suggest worse outcomes for transferred versus nontransferred patients,⁸ a better understanding of the specialized care patients actually receive across the transfer continuum may help to elucidate potential indications for transfer and ultimately help delineate which patients are most (or least) likely to benefit from transfer and why.

In this national study, we examined a select cohort of transferred patients with diagnoses associated with specific specialty procedural services to determine if they received these procedures and where along the transfer continuum they were performed.

We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files. Our study protocol was approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Review Committee.

Beneficiaries were eligible for inclusion if they were aged ≥65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, and with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013, excluding Medicare managed care and end stage renal disease beneficiaries due to incomplete claims data in these groups. We additionally excluded beneficiaries hospitalized at federal or nonacute care hospitals, or critical access hospitals given their mission to stabilize and then transfer patients to referral hospitals.⁹

Transferred patients were defined as beneficiaries with corresponding “transfer in” and “transfer out” claims, or those with either claim and a corresponding date of admission/discharge from another hospital within 1 day of the claim, as we used in our prior research.² Beneficiaries transferred to the same hospital, those with greater than 1 transfer within the same hospitalization, or those cared for at hospitals with “outlier” transfer-in rates equal to 100% or transfer-out rates greater than 35% were excluded from analysis given the suggestion of nonstandard claims practices.

We first identified the top 15 primary diagnoses at time of transfer using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes (supplementary Appendix), and then identified those 4 most likely to require specialty procedural services: AMI, gastrointestinal bleed (GI bleed), renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation. We then chose associated ICD-9 procedure codes for each diagnosis, via expert opinion (authors SM and JS, hospitalist physicians with greater than 20 years of combined clinical experience), erring on overinclusion of procedure codes. We then quantified receipt of associated procedures at transferring and receiving hospitals, stratified by diagnosis.

We further explored the cohort of patients with hip fracture/dislocation who underwent an associated procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, examining the frequency with which these patients had other (nonrelated) procedures at the receiving hospital, and identifying which procedures they received.

Of the 101,507 patients transferred to another hospital, 19,613 (19.3%) had a primary diagnosis of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, or hip fracture/dislocation. Table 1 lists the ICD-9 procedure codes associated with each diagnosis.

Distribution of receipt of specialty procedures at the transferring and receiving hospitals varied by disease (Figure). With the exception of GI bleed, patients more often received specialty procedural care at the receiving than the transferring hospital. Depending on primary diagnosis, between 32.4% and 89.1% of patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital.

Of the 370 (22.1%) hip fracture/dislocation patients that received a specialty procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, 132 (35.7%) did not receive any procedure at the receiving hospital, whereas the remaining 238 (64.3%) received an unrelated (not associated with the primary diagnosis) procedure. There was great variety in the types of procedures received, the most common being transfusion of blood products (ICD-9 Clinical Modification 9904).

Among transferred patients with primary diagnoses that have clearly associated specialized procedural services, we found that patients received these procedures at varying frequency and locations across the transfer continuum. Across 4 diagnoses, receipt of associated procedures was more common at the receiving than the transferring hospital, with the exception being patients with GI bleed. We additionally found that many transferred patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital. These findings suggest the strong likelihood of more diverse underlying reasons for transfer rather than solely receipt of specialized procedural care.

Despite the frequency with which AMI patients are transferred,⁶ and American Heart Association guidelines directing hospitals to transfer AMI patients to institutions able to provide necessary invasive treatments,⁴ prior studies suggest these patients inconsistently receive specialty intervention following transfer, including stress testing, cardiac catheterization, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.^10,11 Our findings add to these data, demonstrating that only 47.3% of patients transferred with AMI received any cardiac-related procedure at the receiving hospital. Additionally, we found that 38.1% of AMI patients do not receive any specialty procedures at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. Taken together, these data suggest possible discrepancies in the perceived need for these procedures between transferring and receiving hospitals, reasons for transfer related to these conditions that don’t involve an associated procedure, or reasons for transfer unrelated to specialty care of the primary diagnosis (such as care of comorbidities, hospital location, prior relationships with that hospital, or desire for a second opinion). Although some of these alternate reasons for transfer likely still benefit the patient, some of these reasons may not justify the increased risks of discontinuity of care created by IHT.

Given limited data looking at IHT practices for patients with other diagnoses, the varying patterns of specialty procedural interventions we observed among transferred patients with GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation are novel contributions to this topic. Notably, we found that among patients transferred with a primary diagnosis of renal failure, the vast majority (84.1%) did not receive any associated procedure at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. It is possible that although these patients carried the diagnosis of renal failure, their clinical phenotype is more heterogeneous, and they could still be managed conservatively without receipt of invasive procedures such as hemodialysis.

Conversely, patients transferred with primary diagnosis of hip fracture/dislocation were far more likely to receive associated specialty procedural intervention at the receiving hospital, presumably reflective of the evidence demonstrating improved outcomes with early surgical intervention.¹² However, these data do not explain the reasoning behind the substantial minority of patients who received specialty intervention at the transferring hospital prior to transfer or those that did not receive any specialty intervention at either the transferring or receiving hospital. Our secondary analysis demonstrating great variety in receipt and type of nonassociated procedures provided at the receiving hospital did not help to elucidate potential underlying reasons for transfer.

Notably, among patients transferred with primary diagnosis of GI bleed, receipt of specialty procedures was more common at the transferring (77.7%) than receiving (63.2%) hospital, with nearly half (49.3%) undergoing specialty procedures at both hospitals. It is possible that these findings are reflective of the broad array of specialty procedures examined within this diagnosis. For example, it is reasonable to consider that a patient may be stabilized with receipt of a blood transfusion at the transferring hospital, then transferred to undergo a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure (ie, endoscopy/colonoscopy) at the receiving hospital, as is suggested by our results.

Our study is subject to several limitations. First, given the criteria we used to define transfer, it is possible that we included nontransferred patients within our transferred cohort if they were discharged from one hospital and admitted to a different hospital within 1 day, although quality assurance analyses we conducted in prior studies on these data support the validity of the criteria used.² Second, we cannot exclude the possibility that patients received nonprocedural specialty care (ie, expert opinion, specialized imaging, medical management, management of secondary diagnoses, etc.) not available at the transferring hospital, although, arguably, in select patients, such input could be obtained without physical transfer of the patient (ie, tele-consult). And even in patients transferred with intent to receive procedural care who did not ultimately receive that care, there is likely an appropriate “nonprocedure” rate, where patients who might benefit from a procedure receive a timely evaluation to reduce the risk of missing the opportunity to receive it. This would be analogous to transferring a patient to an ICU even if they do not end up requiring intubation or pressor therapy. However, given the likelihood of higher risks of IHT compared with intrahospital transfers, one could argue that the threshold of perceived benefit might be different in patients being considered for IHT. Additionally, we limited our analyses to only 4 diagnoses; thus, our findings may not be generalizable to other diagnoses of transferred patients. However, because the diagnoses we examined were ones considered most effectively treated with specialty procedural interventions, it is reasonable to presume that the variability in receipt of specialty procedures observed within these diagnoses is also present, if not greater, across other diagnoses. Third, although we intentionally included a broad array of specialty procedures associated with each diagnosis, it is possible that we overlooked particular specialty interventions. For example, in assuming that patients are most likely to be transferred to receive procedural services associated with their primary diagnosis, we may have missed alternate indications for transfer, including need for procedural care related to secondary or subsequent diagnoses (ie, a patient may have presented with GI bleed in the context of profound anemia that requires a bone marrow biopsy for diagnosis, and thus was transferred for the biopsy). Our further examination of unrelated procedures received by hip fracture/dislocation patients at receiving hospitals argues against a select or subset of procedures driving transfers that are not associated with the primary diagnosis but does not fully rule out this possibility (ie, if there are a large variety of secondary diagnoses with distinct associated specialty procedures that are required for each). Lastly, although our examination provides novel information regarding variability in receipt of specialty procedures of transferred patients, we were not able to identify exact reasons for transfer. Instead, our results are hypothesis generating and require further investigation to better understand these reasons.

We found that Medicare patients who undergo IHT with primary diagnoses of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation receive associated specialty interventions at varying frequency and locations, and many patients do not receive any associated procedures at receiving hospitals. Our findings suggest that specialty procedural care of patients, even those with primary diagnoses that often warrant specialized intervention, may not be the primary driver of IHT as commonly suggested, although underlying reasons for transfer in these and other “nonprocedural” transferred patients remains obscure. Given known ambiguity in the transfer process,⁷ and unclear benefit of IHT,⁸ additional research is required to further identify and evaluate other potential underlying reasons for transfer and to examine these in the context of patient outcomes, in order to understand which patients may or may not benefit from transfer and why.

Disclosure

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Patients who undergo interhospital transfer (IHT) are felt to benefit from receipt of unique specialty care at the receiving hospital.¹ Although only 1.5% of all hospitalized Medicare patients undergo hospital transfer,² the frequency of transfer is much greater within certain patient populations, as may be expected with diagnoses requiring specialty care.^3,4 Existent data demonstrate that 5% of Medicare patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU)⁵ and up to 50% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergo IHT.⁶

More recent data suggest variability in hospital transfer practices not accounted for by differences in patient or hospital characteristics.² Although disease-specific guidelines for IHT exist for certain diagnoses,^3,4 the process remains largely nonstandardized for many patients,⁷ leading to ambiguity surrounding indications for transfer. Because limited data suggest worse outcomes for transferred versus nontransferred patients,⁸ a better understanding of the specialized care patients actually receive across the transfer continuum may help to elucidate potential indications for transfer and ultimately help delineate which patients are most (or least) likely to benefit from transfer and why.

In this national study, we examined a select cohort of transferred patients with diagnoses associated with specific specialty procedural services to determine if they received these procedures and where along the transfer continuum they were performed.

We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files. Our study protocol was approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Review Committee.

Beneficiaries were eligible for inclusion if they were aged ≥65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, and with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013, excluding Medicare managed care and end stage renal disease beneficiaries due to incomplete claims data in these groups. We additionally excluded beneficiaries hospitalized at federal or nonacute care hospitals, or critical access hospitals given their mission to stabilize and then transfer patients to referral hospitals.⁹

Transferred patients were defined as beneficiaries with corresponding “transfer in” and “transfer out” claims, or those with either claim and a corresponding date of admission/discharge from another hospital within 1 day of the claim, as we used in our prior research.² Beneficiaries transferred to the same hospital, those with greater than 1 transfer within the same hospitalization, or those cared for at hospitals with “outlier” transfer-in rates equal to 100% or transfer-out rates greater than 35% were excluded from analysis given the suggestion of nonstandard claims practices.

We first identified the top 15 primary diagnoses at time of transfer using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes (supplementary Appendix), and then identified those 4 most likely to require specialty procedural services: AMI, gastrointestinal bleed (GI bleed), renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation. We then chose associated ICD-9 procedure codes for each diagnosis, via expert opinion (authors SM and JS, hospitalist physicians with greater than 20 years of combined clinical experience), erring on overinclusion of procedure codes. We then quantified receipt of associated procedures at transferring and receiving hospitals, stratified by diagnosis.

We further explored the cohort of patients with hip fracture/dislocation who underwent an associated procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, examining the frequency with which these patients had other (nonrelated) procedures at the receiving hospital, and identifying which procedures they received.

Of the 101,507 patients transferred to another hospital, 19,613 (19.3%) had a primary diagnosis of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, or hip fracture/dislocation. Table 1 lists the ICD-9 procedure codes associated with each diagnosis.

Distribution of receipt of specialty procedures at the transferring and receiving hospitals varied by disease (Figure). With the exception of GI bleed, patients more often received specialty procedural care at the receiving than the transferring hospital. Depending on primary diagnosis, between 32.4% and 89.1% of patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital.

Of the 370 (22.1%) hip fracture/dislocation patients that received a specialty procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, 132 (35.7%) did not receive any procedure at the receiving hospital, whereas the remaining 238 (64.3%) received an unrelated (not associated with the primary diagnosis) procedure. There was great variety in the types of procedures received, the most common being transfusion of blood products (ICD-9 Clinical Modification 9904).

Among transferred patients with primary diagnoses that have clearly associated specialized procedural services, we found that patients received these procedures at varying frequency and locations across the transfer continuum. Across 4 diagnoses, receipt of associated procedures was more common at the receiving than the transferring hospital, with the exception being patients with GI bleed. We additionally found that many transferred patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital. These findings suggest the strong likelihood of more diverse underlying reasons for transfer rather than solely receipt of specialized procedural care.

Despite the frequency with which AMI patients are transferred,⁶ and American Heart Association guidelines directing hospitals to transfer AMI patients to institutions able to provide necessary invasive treatments,⁴ prior studies suggest these patients inconsistently receive specialty intervention following transfer, including stress testing, cardiac catheterization, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.^10,11 Our findings add to these data, demonstrating that only 47.3% of patients transferred with AMI received any cardiac-related procedure at the receiving hospital. Additionally, we found that 38.1% of AMI patients do not receive any specialty procedures at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. Taken together, these data suggest possible discrepancies in the perceived need for these procedures between transferring and receiving hospitals, reasons for transfer related to these conditions that don’t involve an associated procedure, or reasons for transfer unrelated to specialty care of the primary diagnosis (such as care of comorbidities, hospital location, prior relationships with that hospital, or desire for a second opinion). Although some of these alternate reasons for transfer likely still benefit the patient, some of these reasons may not justify the increased risks of discontinuity of care created by IHT.

Given limited data looking at IHT practices for patients with other diagnoses, the varying patterns of specialty procedural interventions we observed among transferred patients with GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation are novel contributions to this topic. Notably, we found that among patients transferred with a primary diagnosis of renal failure, the vast majority (84.1%) did not receive any associated procedure at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. It is possible that although these patients carried the diagnosis of renal failure, their clinical phenotype is more heterogeneous, and they could still be managed conservatively without receipt of invasive procedures such as hemodialysis.

Conversely, patients transferred with primary diagnosis of hip fracture/dislocation were far more likely to receive associated specialty procedural intervention at the receiving hospital, presumably reflective of the evidence demonstrating improved outcomes with early surgical intervention.¹² However, these data do not explain the reasoning behind the substantial minority of patients who received specialty intervention at the transferring hospital prior to transfer or those that did not receive any specialty intervention at either the transferring or receiving hospital. Our secondary analysis demonstrating great variety in receipt and type of nonassociated procedures provided at the receiving hospital did not help to elucidate potential underlying reasons for transfer.

Notably, among patients transferred with primary diagnosis of GI bleed, receipt of specialty procedures was more common at the transferring (77.7%) than receiving (63.2%) hospital, with nearly half (49.3%) undergoing specialty procedures at both hospitals. It is possible that these findings are reflective of the broad array of specialty procedures examined within this diagnosis. For example, it is reasonable to consider that a patient may be stabilized with receipt of a blood transfusion at the transferring hospital, then transferred to undergo a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure (ie, endoscopy/colonoscopy) at the receiving hospital, as is suggested by our results.

Our study is subject to several limitations. First, given the criteria we used to define transfer, it is possible that we included nontransferred patients within our transferred cohort if they were discharged from one hospital and admitted to a different hospital within 1 day, although quality assurance analyses we conducted in prior studies on these data support the validity of the criteria used.² Second, we cannot exclude the possibility that patients received nonprocedural specialty care (ie, expert opinion, specialized imaging, medical management, management of secondary diagnoses, etc.) not available at the transferring hospital, although, arguably, in select patients, such input could be obtained without physical transfer of the patient (ie, tele-consult). And even in patients transferred with intent to receive procedural care who did not ultimately receive that care, there is likely an appropriate “nonprocedure” rate, where patients who might benefit from a procedure receive a timely evaluation to reduce the risk of missing the opportunity to receive it. This would be analogous to transferring a patient to an ICU even if they do not end up requiring intubation or pressor therapy. However, given the likelihood of higher risks of IHT compared with intrahospital transfers, one could argue that the threshold of perceived benefit might be different in patients being considered for IHT. Additionally, we limited our analyses to only 4 diagnoses; thus, our findings may not be generalizable to other diagnoses of transferred patients. However, because the diagnoses we examined were ones considered most effectively treated with specialty procedural interventions, it is reasonable to presume that the variability in receipt of specialty procedures observed within these diagnoses is also present, if not greater, across other diagnoses. Third, although we intentionally included a broad array of specialty procedures associated with each diagnosis, it is possible that we overlooked particular specialty interventions. For example, in assuming that patients are most likely to be transferred to receive procedural services associated with their primary diagnosis, we may have missed alternate indications for transfer, including need for procedural care related to secondary or subsequent diagnoses (ie, a patient may have presented with GI bleed in the context of profound anemia that requires a bone marrow biopsy for diagnosis, and thus was transferred for the biopsy). Our further examination of unrelated procedures received by hip fracture/dislocation patients at receiving hospitals argues against a select or subset of procedures driving transfers that are not associated with the primary diagnosis but does not fully rule out this possibility (ie, if there are a large variety of secondary diagnoses with distinct associated specialty procedures that are required for each). Lastly, although our examination provides novel information regarding variability in receipt of specialty procedures of transferred patients, we were not able to identify exact reasons for transfer. Instead, our results are hypothesis generating and require further investigation to better understand these reasons.

We found that Medicare patients who undergo IHT with primary diagnoses of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation receive associated specialty interventions at varying frequency and locations, and many patients do not receive any associated procedures at receiving hospitals. Our findings suggest that specialty procedural care of patients, even those with primary diagnoses that often warrant specialized intervention, may not be the primary driver of IHT as commonly suggested, although underlying reasons for transfer in these and other “nonprocedural” transferred patients remains obscure. Given known ambiguity in the transfer process,⁷ and unclear benefit of IHT,⁸ additional research is required to further identify and evaluate other potential underlying reasons for transfer and to examine these in the context of patient outcomes, in order to understand which patients may or may not benefit from transfer and why.

Disclosure

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Patients who undergo interhospital transfer (IHT) are felt to benefit from receipt of unique specialty care at the receiving hospital.¹ Although only 1.5% of all hospitalized Medicare patients undergo hospital transfer,² the frequency of transfer is much greater within certain patient populations, as may be expected with diagnoses requiring specialty care.^3,4 Existent data demonstrate that 5% of Medicare patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU)⁵ and up to 50% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergo IHT.⁶

More recent data suggest variability in hospital transfer practices not accounted for by differences in patient or hospital characteristics.² Although disease-specific guidelines for IHT exist for certain diagnoses,^3,4 the process remains largely nonstandardized for many patients,⁷ leading to ambiguity surrounding indications for transfer. Because limited data suggest worse outcomes for transferred versus nontransferred patients,⁸ a better understanding of the specialized care patients actually receive across the transfer continuum may help to elucidate potential indications for transfer and ultimately help delineate which patients are most (or least) likely to benefit from transfer and why.

In this national study, we examined a select cohort of transferred patients with diagnoses associated with specific specialty procedural services to determine if they received these procedures and where along the transfer continuum they were performed.

We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files. Our study protocol was approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Review Committee.

Beneficiaries were eligible for inclusion if they were aged ≥65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, and with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013, excluding Medicare managed care and end stage renal disease beneficiaries due to incomplete claims data in these groups. We additionally excluded beneficiaries hospitalized at federal or nonacute care hospitals, or critical access hospitals given their mission to stabilize and then transfer patients to referral hospitals.⁹

Transferred patients were defined as beneficiaries with corresponding “transfer in” and “transfer out” claims, or those with either claim and a corresponding date of admission/discharge from another hospital within 1 day of the claim, as we used in our prior research.² Beneficiaries transferred to the same hospital, those with greater than 1 transfer within the same hospitalization, or those cared for at hospitals with “outlier” transfer-in rates equal to 100% or transfer-out rates greater than 35% were excluded from analysis given the suggestion of nonstandard claims practices.

We first identified the top 15 primary diagnoses at time of transfer using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes (supplementary Appendix), and then identified those 4 most likely to require specialty procedural services: AMI, gastrointestinal bleed (GI bleed), renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation. We then chose associated ICD-9 procedure codes for each diagnosis, via expert opinion (authors SM and JS, hospitalist physicians with greater than 20 years of combined clinical experience), erring on overinclusion of procedure codes. We then quantified receipt of associated procedures at transferring and receiving hospitals, stratified by diagnosis.

We further explored the cohort of patients with hip fracture/dislocation who underwent an associated procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, examining the frequency with which these patients had other (nonrelated) procedures at the receiving hospital, and identifying which procedures they received.

Of the 101,507 patients transferred to another hospital, 19,613 (19.3%) had a primary diagnosis of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, or hip fracture/dislocation. Table 1 lists the ICD-9 procedure codes associated with each diagnosis.

Distribution of receipt of specialty procedures at the transferring and receiving hospitals varied by disease (Figure). With the exception of GI bleed, patients more often received specialty procedural care at the receiving than the transferring hospital. Depending on primary diagnosis, between 32.4% and 89.1% of patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital.

Of the 370 (22.1%) hip fracture/dislocation patients that received a specialty procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, 132 (35.7%) did not receive any procedure at the receiving hospital, whereas the remaining 238 (64.3%) received an unrelated (not associated with the primary diagnosis) procedure. There was great variety in the types of procedures received, the most common being transfusion of blood products (ICD-9 Clinical Modification 9904).

Among transferred patients with primary diagnoses that have clearly associated specialized procedural services, we found that patients received these procedures at varying frequency and locations across the transfer continuum. Across 4 diagnoses, receipt of associated procedures was more common at the receiving than the transferring hospital, with the exception being patients with GI bleed. We additionally found that many transferred patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital. These findings suggest the strong likelihood of more diverse underlying reasons for transfer rather than solely receipt of specialized procedural care.

Despite the frequency with which AMI patients are transferred,⁶ and American Heart Association guidelines directing hospitals to transfer AMI patients to institutions able to provide necessary invasive treatments,⁴ prior studies suggest these patients inconsistently receive specialty intervention following transfer, including stress testing, cardiac catheterization, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.^10,11 Our findings add to these data, demonstrating that only 47.3% of patients transferred with AMI received any cardiac-related procedure at the receiving hospital. Additionally, we found that 38.1% of AMI patients do not receive any specialty procedures at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. Taken together, these data suggest possible discrepancies in the perceived need for these procedures between transferring and receiving hospitals, reasons for transfer related to these conditions that don’t involve an associated procedure, or reasons for transfer unrelated to specialty care of the primary diagnosis (such as care of comorbidities, hospital location, prior relationships with that hospital, or desire for a second opinion). Although some of these alternate reasons for transfer likely still benefit the patient, some of these reasons may not justify the increased risks of discontinuity of care created by IHT.

Given limited data looking at IHT practices for patients with other diagnoses, the varying patterns of specialty procedural interventions we observed among transferred patients with GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation are novel contributions to this topic. Notably, we found that among patients transferred with a primary diagnosis of renal failure, the vast majority (84.1%) did not receive any associated procedure at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. It is possible that although these patients carried the diagnosis of renal failure, their clinical phenotype is more heterogeneous, and they could still be managed conservatively without receipt of invasive procedures such as hemodialysis.

Conversely, patients transferred with primary diagnosis of hip fracture/dislocation were far more likely to receive associated specialty procedural intervention at the receiving hospital, presumably reflective of the evidence demonstrating improved outcomes with early surgical intervention.¹² However, these data do not explain the reasoning behind the substantial minority of patients who received specialty intervention at the transferring hospital prior to transfer or those that did not receive any specialty intervention at either the transferring or receiving hospital. Our secondary analysis demonstrating great variety in receipt and type of nonassociated procedures provided at the receiving hospital did not help to elucidate potential underlying reasons for transfer.

Notably, among patients transferred with primary diagnosis of GI bleed, receipt of specialty procedures was more common at the transferring (77.7%) than receiving (63.2%) hospital, with nearly half (49.3%) undergoing specialty procedures at both hospitals. It is possible that these findings are reflective of the broad array of specialty procedures examined within this diagnosis. For example, it is reasonable to consider that a patient may be stabilized with receipt of a blood transfusion at the transferring hospital, then transferred to undergo a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure (ie, endoscopy/colonoscopy) at the receiving hospital, as is suggested by our results.

Our study is subject to several limitations. First, given the criteria we used to define transfer, it is possible that we included nontransferred patients within our transferred cohort if they were discharged from one hospital and admitted to a different hospital within 1 day, although quality assurance analyses we conducted in prior studies on these data support the validity of the criteria used.² Second, we cannot exclude the possibility that patients received nonprocedural specialty care (ie, expert opinion, specialized imaging, medical management, management of secondary diagnoses, etc.) not available at the transferring hospital, although, arguably, in select patients, such input could be obtained without physical transfer of the patient (ie, tele-consult). And even in patients transferred with intent to receive procedural care who did not ultimately receive that care, there is likely an appropriate “nonprocedure” rate, where patients who might benefit from a procedure receive a timely evaluation to reduce the risk of missing the opportunity to receive it. This would be analogous to transferring a patient to an ICU even if they do not end up requiring intubation or pressor therapy. However, given the likelihood of higher risks of IHT compared with intrahospital transfers, one could argue that the threshold of perceived benefit might be different in patients being considered for IHT. Additionally, we limited our analyses to only 4 diagnoses; thus, our findings may not be generalizable to other diagnoses of transferred patients. However, because the diagnoses we examined were ones considered most effectively treated with specialty procedural interventions, it is reasonable to presume that the variability in receipt of specialty procedures observed within these diagnoses is also present, if not greater, across other diagnoses. Third, although we intentionally included a broad array of specialty procedures associated with each diagnosis, it is possible that we overlooked particular specialty interventions. For example, in assuming that patients are most likely to be transferred to receive procedural services associated with their primary diagnosis, we may have missed alternate indications for transfer, including need for procedural care related to secondary or subsequent diagnoses (ie, a patient may have presented with GI bleed in the context of profound anemia that requires a bone marrow biopsy for diagnosis, and thus was transferred for the biopsy). Our further examination of unrelated procedures received by hip fracture/dislocation patients at receiving hospitals argues against a select or subset of procedures driving transfers that are not associated with the primary diagnosis but does not fully rule out this possibility (ie, if there are a large variety of secondary diagnoses with distinct associated specialty procedures that are required for each). Lastly, although our examination provides novel information regarding variability in receipt of specialty procedures of transferred patients, we were not able to identify exact reasons for transfer. Instead, our results are hypothesis generating and require further investigation to better understand these reasons.

We found that Medicare patients who undergo IHT with primary diagnoses of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation receive associated specialty interventions at varying frequency and locations, and many patients do not receive any associated procedures at receiving hospitals. Our findings suggest that specialty procedural care of patients, even those with primary diagnoses that often warrant specialized intervention, may not be the primary driver of IHT as commonly suggested, although underlying reasons for transfer in these and other “nonprocedural” transferred patients remains obscure. Given known ambiguity in the transfer process,⁷ and unclear benefit of IHT,⁸ additional research is required to further identify and evaluate other potential underlying reasons for transfer and to examine these in the context of patient outcomes, in order to understand which patients may or may not benefit from transfer and why.

Disclosure

The authors have nothing to disclose.

As the hospitalist’s role in medicine grows, the transition of care from inpatient to primary care providers (PCPs, including primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants), becomes increasingly important. Inadequate communication at this transition is associated with preventable adverse events leading to rehospitalization, disability, and death.^1-3 While professional societies recommend PCPs be notified at every care transition, the specific timing and modality of this communication is not well defined.⁴

Providing PCPs access to the inpatient electronic health record (EHR) may reduce the need for active communication. However, a recent survey of PCPs in the general internal medicine division of an academic hospital found a strong preference for additional communication with inpatient providers, despite a shared EHR.⁵

We examined communication preferences of general internal medicine PCPs at a different academic institution and extended our study to include community-based PCPs who were both affiliated and unaffiliated with the institution.

METHODS

Between October 2015 and June 2016, we surveyed PCPs from 3 practice groups with institutional affiliation or proximity to The Johns Hopkins Hospital: all general internal medicine faculty with outpatient practices (“academic,” 2 practice sites, n = 35), all community-based PCPs affiliated with the health system (“community,” 36 practice sites, n = 220), and all PCPs from an unaffiliated managed care organization (“unaffiliated,” 5 practice sites ranging from 0.3 to 4 miles from The Johns Hopkins Hospital, n = 29).

All groups have work-sponsored e-mail services. At the time of the survey, both the academic and community groups used an EHR that allowed access to inpatient laboratory and radiology data and discharge summaries. The unaffiliated group used paper health records. The hospital faxes discharge summaries to all PCPs who are identified by patients.

The investigators and representatives from each practice group collaborated to develop 15 questions with mutually exclusive answers to evaluate PCP experiences with and preferences for communication with inpatient teams. The survey was constructed and administered through Qualtrics’ online platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) and distributed via e-mail. The study was reviewed and acknowledged by the Johns Hopkins institutional review board as quality improvement activity.

The survey contained branching logic. Only respondents who indicated preference for communication received questions regarding preferred mode of communication. We used the preferred mode of communication for initial contact from the inpatient team in our analysis. χ² and Fischer’s exact tests were performed with JMP 12 software (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Fourteen (40%) academic, 43 (14%) community, and 16 (55%) unaffiliated PCPs completed the survey, for 73 total responses from 284 surveys distributed (26%).

Among the 73 responding PCPs, 31 (42%) reported receiving notification of admission during “every” or “almost every” hospitalization, with no significant variation across practice groups (P = 0.5).

Across all groups, 64 PCPs (88%) preferred communication at 1 or more points during hospitalizations (panel A of Figure). “Both upon admission and prior to discharge” was selected most frequently, and there were no differences between practice groups (P = 0.2).

DISCUSSION

Our findings add to previous evidence of low rates of communication between inpatient providers and PCPs⁶ and a preference from PCPs for communication during hospitalizations despite shared EHRs.⁵ We extend previous work by demonstrating that PCP preferences for mode of communication vary by practice setting. Our findings lead us to hypothesize that identifying and incorporating PCP preferences may improve communication, though at the potential expense of standardization and efficiency.

There may be several reasons for the differing communication preferences observed. Most academic PCPs are located near or have admitting privileges to the hospital and are not in clinic full time. Their preference for the telephone may thus result from interpersonal relationships born from proximity and greater availability for telephone calls, or reduced fluency with the EHR compared to full-time community clinicians.

The unaffiliated group’s preference for fax may reflect a desire for communication that integrates easily with paper charts and is least disruptive to workflow, or concerns about health information confidentiality in e-mails.

Our study’s generalizability is limited by a low response rate, though it is comparable to prior studies.⁷ The unaffiliated group was accessed by convenience (acquaintance with the medical director); however, we note it had the highest response rate (55%).

In summary, we found low rates of communication between inpatient providers and PCPs, despite a strong preference from most PCPs for such communication during hospitalizations. PCPs’ preferred mode of communication differed based on practice setting. Addressing PCP communication preferences may be important to future care transition interventions.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

As the hospitalist’s role in medicine grows, the transition of care from inpatient to primary care providers (PCPs, including primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants), becomes increasingly important. Inadequate communication at this transition is associated with preventable adverse events leading to rehospitalization, disability, and death.^1-3 While professional societies recommend PCPs be notified at every care transition, the specific timing and modality of this communication is not well defined.⁴

Providing PCPs access to the inpatient electronic health record (EHR) may reduce the need for active communication. However, a recent survey of PCPs in the general internal medicine division of an academic hospital found a strong preference for additional communication with inpatient providers, despite a shared EHR.⁵

We examined communication preferences of general internal medicine PCPs at a different academic institution and extended our study to include community-based PCPs who were both affiliated and unaffiliated with the institution.

METHODS

Between October 2015 and June 2016, we surveyed PCPs from 3 practice groups with institutional affiliation or proximity to The Johns Hopkins Hospital: all general internal medicine faculty with outpatient practices (“academic,” 2 practice sites, n = 35), all community-based PCPs affiliated with the health system (“community,” 36 practice sites, n = 220), and all PCPs from an unaffiliated managed care organization (“unaffiliated,” 5 practice sites ranging from 0.3 to 4 miles from The Johns Hopkins Hospital, n = 29).

All groups have work-sponsored e-mail services. At the time of the survey, both the academic and community groups used an EHR that allowed access to inpatient laboratory and radiology data and discharge summaries. The unaffiliated group used paper health records. The hospital faxes discharge summaries to all PCPs who are identified by patients.

The investigators and representatives from each practice group collaborated to develop 15 questions with mutually exclusive answers to evaluate PCP experiences with and preferences for communication with inpatient teams. The survey was constructed and administered through Qualtrics’ online platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) and distributed via e-mail. The study was reviewed and acknowledged by the Johns Hopkins institutional review board as quality improvement activity.

The survey contained branching logic. Only respondents who indicated preference for communication received questions regarding preferred mode of communication. We used the preferred mode of communication for initial contact from the inpatient team in our analysis. χ² and Fischer’s exact tests were performed with JMP 12 software (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Fourteen (40%) academic, 43 (14%) community, and 16 (55%) unaffiliated PCPs completed the survey, for 73 total responses from 284 surveys distributed (26%).

Among the 73 responding PCPs, 31 (42%) reported receiving notification of admission during “every” or “almost every” hospitalization, with no significant variation across practice groups (P = 0.5).

Across all groups, 64 PCPs (88%) preferred communication at 1 or more points during hospitalizations (panel A of Figure). “Both upon admission and prior to discharge” was selected most frequently, and there were no differences between practice groups (P = 0.2).

DISCUSSION

Our findings add to previous evidence of low rates of communication between inpatient providers and PCPs⁶ and a preference from PCPs for communication during hospitalizations despite shared EHRs.⁵ We extend previous work by demonstrating that PCP preferences for mode of communication vary by practice setting. Our findings lead us to hypothesize that identifying and incorporating PCP preferences may improve communication, though at the potential expense of standardization and efficiency.

There may be several reasons for the differing communication preferences observed. Most academic PCPs are located near or have admitting privileges to the hospital and are not in clinic full time. Their preference for the telephone may thus result from interpersonal relationships born from proximity and greater availability for telephone calls, or reduced fluency with the EHR compared to full-time community clinicians.

The unaffiliated group’s preference for fax may reflect a desire for communication that integrates easily with paper charts and is least disruptive to workflow, or concerns about health information confidentiality in e-mails.

Our study’s generalizability is limited by a low response rate, though it is comparable to prior studies.⁷ The unaffiliated group was accessed by convenience (acquaintance with the medical director); however, we note it had the highest response rate (55%).

In summary, we found low rates of communication between inpatient providers and PCPs, despite a strong preference from most PCPs for such communication during hospitalizations. PCPs’ preferred mode of communication differed based on practice setting. Addressing PCP communication preferences may be important to future care transition interventions.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

As the hospitalist’s role in medicine grows, the transition of care from inpatient to primary care providers (PCPs, including primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants), becomes increasingly important. Inadequate communication at this transition is associated with preventable adverse events leading to rehospitalization, disability, and death.^1-3 While professional societies recommend PCPs be notified at every care transition, the specific timing and modality of this communication is not well defined.⁴

Providing PCPs access to the inpatient electronic health record (EHR) may reduce the need for active communication. However, a recent survey of PCPs in the general internal medicine division of an academic hospital found a strong preference for additional communication with inpatient providers, despite a shared EHR.⁵

We examined communication preferences of general internal medicine PCPs at a different academic institution and extended our study to include community-based PCPs who were both affiliated and unaffiliated with the institution.

METHODS

Between October 2015 and June 2016, we surveyed PCPs from 3 practice groups with institutional affiliation or proximity to The Johns Hopkins Hospital: all general internal medicine faculty with outpatient practices (“academic,” 2 practice sites, n = 35), all community-based PCPs affiliated with the health system (“community,” 36 practice sites, n = 220), and all PCPs from an unaffiliated managed care organization (“unaffiliated,” 5 practice sites ranging from 0.3 to 4 miles from The Johns Hopkins Hospital, n = 29).

All groups have work-sponsored e-mail services. At the time of the survey, both the academic and community groups used an EHR that allowed access to inpatient laboratory and radiology data and discharge summaries. The unaffiliated group used paper health records. The hospital faxes discharge summaries to all PCPs who are identified by patients.

The investigators and representatives from each practice group collaborated to develop 15 questions with mutually exclusive answers to evaluate PCP experiences with and preferences for communication with inpatient teams. The survey was constructed and administered through Qualtrics’ online platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) and distributed via e-mail. The study was reviewed and acknowledged by the Johns Hopkins institutional review board as quality improvement activity.

The survey contained branching logic. Only respondents who indicated preference for communication received questions regarding preferred mode of communication. We used the preferred mode of communication for initial contact from the inpatient team in our analysis. χ² and Fischer’s exact tests were performed with JMP 12 software (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Fourteen (40%) academic, 43 (14%) community, and 16 (55%) unaffiliated PCPs completed the survey, for 73 total responses from 284 surveys distributed (26%).

Among the 73 responding PCPs, 31 (42%) reported receiving notification of admission during “every” or “almost every” hospitalization, with no significant variation across practice groups (P = 0.5).

Across all groups, 64 PCPs (88%) preferred communication at 1 or more points during hospitalizations (panel A of Figure). “Both upon admission and prior to discharge” was selected most frequently, and there were no differences between practice groups (P = 0.2).

DISCUSSION

Our findings add to previous evidence of low rates of communication between inpatient providers and PCPs⁶ and a preference from PCPs for communication during hospitalizations despite shared EHRs.⁵ We extend previous work by demonstrating that PCP preferences for mode of communication vary by practice setting. Our findings lead us to hypothesize that identifying and incorporating PCP preferences may improve communication, though at the potential expense of standardization and efficiency.

There may be several reasons for the differing communication preferences observed. Most academic PCPs are located near or have admitting privileges to the hospital and are not in clinic full time. Their preference for the telephone may thus result from interpersonal relationships born from proximity and greater availability for telephone calls, or reduced fluency with the EHR compared to full-time community clinicians.

The unaffiliated group’s preference for fax may reflect a desire for communication that integrates easily with paper charts and is least disruptive to workflow, or concerns about health information confidentiality in e-mails.

Our study’s generalizability is limited by a low response rate, though it is comparable to prior studies.⁷ The unaffiliated group was accessed by convenience (acquaintance with the medical director); however, we note it had the highest response rate (55%).

In summary, we found low rates of communication between inpatient providers and PCPs, despite a strong preference from most PCPs for such communication during hospitalizations. PCPs’ preferred mode of communication differed based on practice setting. Addressing PCP communication preferences may be important to future care transition interventions.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

The 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) remains one of the most widely used and readily available diagnostic tests in modern medicine.¹ Reflecting the electrical behavior of the heart, this point-of-care diagnostic test is used in almost every area of medicine for diagnosis, prognostication, and selection of appropriate treatment. The ECG is sometimes the only and most efficient way of detecting life-threatening conditions, thus allowing a timely delivery of emergency care.² However, the practical power of the 12-lead ECG relies on the ability of the clinician to interpret this test correctly.

For decades, ECG interpretation has been a core component of undergraduate and postgraduate medical training.^3-5 Unfortunately, numerous studies have demonstrated alarming rates of inaccuracy and variability in interpreting ECGs among trainees at all levels of education.^4,6,7 Senior medical students have been repeatedly shown to miss 26% to 62% of acute myocardial infarctions (MI).^6,8-10 Another recent study involving internal medicine residents demonstrated that only half of the straightforward common ECGs were interpreted correctly, while 26% of trainees missed an acute MI and 56% missed ventricular tachycardia (VT).¹¹ Even cardiology subspecialty fellows demonstrated poor performance, missing up to 26% of ST-elevation MIs on ECGs that had multiple findings.¹² Inaccurate interpretations of ECGs can lead to inappropriate management decisions, adverse patient outcomes, unnecessary additional testing, and even preventable deaths.^4,13-15

Several guidelines have emphasized the importance of teaching trainees 12-lead ECG interpretation and have recognized the value of assessments in ensuring that learners acquire the necessary competencies.^16-19 Similarly, there have been many calls for more rigorous and structured curricula for ECG interpretation throughout undergraduate and postgraduate medical education.^11,16 However, we still lack a thoughtful guideline outlining the specific competencies that medical trainees should attain. This includes medical students, nurses working in hospital and in out-of-hospital settings, and residents of different specialties, including emergency medicine, cardiology, and electrophysiology (EP) fellows.

Setting goals and objectives for target learners is recognized to be the initial step and a core prerequisite for effective curriculum development.²⁰ In this publication, we summarize the objectives from previously published trainee assessments and propose reasonably attainable ECG interpretation competencies for both graduating medical students and residents at the end of their postgraduate training. This document is being endorsed by researchers and educators of 2 international societies dedicated to the study of electrical heart diseases: the International Society of Electrocardiology (ISE) and the International Society of Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology (ISHNE).

Current Competencies in Literature

We performed a systematic search to identify ECG competencies that are currently mentioned in the literature. Information was retrieved from MEDLINE (1946-2016) and EMBASE (1947-2016) by using the following MeSH terms: electrocardiogram, electrocardiography, electrocardiogram interpretation, electrocardiogram competency, medical school, medical student, undergraduate medicine, undergraduate medical education, residency education, internship, and residency. Our search was limited to English-language articles that studied physician trainees. The references of the full-length articles were examined for additional citations. The search revealed a total of 65 publications involving medical students and 120 publications involving residents. Abstracts of publications were then assessed for relevance, and the methods of the remaining articles were scrutinized for references to specific ECG interpretation objectives. This strategy narrowed the search to 9 and 14 articles involving medical students and residents, respectively. Studies were not graded for quality because the purpose of the search was to identify the specific ECG competencies that authors expected trainees to obtain. Almost all the articles proposed teaching tools and specific objectives that were defined by the investigators arbitrarily and assessed the trainee’s ability to interpret ECGs (summarized in supplementary Table).

Defining ECG Interpretation Competencies

The initial draft of proposed ECG interpretation competencies was developed at Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada. A list of ECG patterns and diagnoses previously mentioned in literature was used as a starting point. From there, each item was refined and organized into 4 main categories (see Figures 1 and 2).

Class A “Common electrocardiographic emergencies” represent patterns that are frequently seen in hospitals, in which accurate interpretation of the ECG within minutes is essential for delivering care that is potentially lifesaving to the patient (eg, ST-elevation MI).

The final distribution of ECG patterns is illustrated in Figure 2. (Figure 3 defines the learning objectives for each ECG pattern defined in Figure 2.) Here, we provide a rationale for

Class A: Common Electrocardiographic Emergencies

This group contains ECG findings that require recognition within minutes to deliver potentially lifesaving care. For this reason, undergraduate medical education programs should prioritize mastering class A conditions to minimize the risk of misdiagnosis and late recognition.

Class A patterns include ST elevation MI (STEMI) and localization of territory to ensure ST-segment elevations are seen in contiguous leads.^29,30 Students should learn the criteria for STEMI as per the “Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction” and be aware of early signs of STEMI that may be seen prior to ST-segment changes, such as hyper-acute T-waves (increased amplitude and symmetrical).³⁰

Asystole, wide complex tachycardias, and ventricular fibrillation (VF) are all crucial ECG patterns that must be identified to deliver advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) care as per the 2010 AHA Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardio care.³¹ Of note, students should understand the differential diagnosis of wide complex tachycardias and should be able to suspect VF in clinically appropriate scenarios. We included the category “unstable/symptomatic supraventricular tachycardia” to represent rapid rhythms that are supraventricular in origin, which either produce symptoms or cause impairment of vital organ function.³¹ In emergency situations, it may not be crucial to correctly identify the specific supraventricular rhythm to deliver ACLS care; hence, the specific supraventricular tachycardia diagnoses were included in Class B.

Finally, we believe that medical students should be able to recognize long QT, hypo/hyperkalemia, and distinguish types of atrioventricular (AV) block. Distinguishing types of AV block is important because both third degree AV block and second degree AV block Mobitz II can be life threatening and require further investigation or emergency treatment in an inpatient setting.³² Prompt recognition of long QT is crucial because it can be associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This includes a polymorphic pattern characterized by the twisting of QRS peaks around the baseline (torsades des pointes), which can eventually lead to VF.

Class B: Common Nonemergency Patterns

Class B patterns represent common findings that are seen on a daily basis that may impact patient care in a clinically appropriate context. Diagnoses in this section were divided into “tachycardia syndromes,” “bradycardia syndromes,” “conduction abnormalities,” “ischemia,” and “other.”

Undergraduate trainees should become proficient in identifying the cause of bradycardia and distinguishing types of AV blocks. Similarly, they should also have an approach to differentiate tachycardia syndromes.^33,34 These skills are required to correctly manage patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings. They should be taught in undergraduate programs and reinforced in postgraduate training.

Common findings, such as bundle branch blocks, left anterior fascicular block, premature ventricular/atrial complexes, electronic pacemakers, and left ventricular hypertrophy, are essential to the daily interpretation of ECGs. Junior learners should be proficient in recognizing these patterns. Findings consistent with pericarditis are not uncommon and can be very helpful to guide the clinician to the diagnosis. Notable exceptions from the medical student competency list include detection of lead misplacement, common artifacts, nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay, interatrial block, and benign early repolarization. These findings require a deeper understanding of electrocardiography and would be more appropriate for senior learners.

Class C: Uncommon Electrocardiographic Emergencies

Class C findings represent uncommon conditions that, if recognized, can prevent serious adverse patient outcomes. These include preexcitation, STEMI with preexisting left bundle branch block sinus pauses, Brugada pattern, hypothermia, effects of toxic drugs, ventricular aneurysm, and right ventricular hypertrophy. The recognition of these patterns is crucial to avoid severe adverse patient outcomes, and independent practicing physicians should be aware of these findings. However, given that a high proportion of senior medical students miss common electrocardiographic emergencies, undergraduate medical education programs should instead focus resources on ensuring medical students are proficient in identifying class A and class B conditions.^6,8-10 Postgraduate programs should ensure that postgraduate trainees can identify these potentially life-threatening conditions (see section “How to Teach Electrocardiology”).

Class D: Uncommon and Nonemergency Patterns

Class D findings represent less common findings that are not seen every day and do not require urgent medical attention. These include right atrial abnormality, left posterior fascicular block, low atrial rhythms, and electrolyte abnormalities that exclude potassium. Notably, electrolyte abnormalities are important to identify; however, typically, treatment is guided by the lab results.³⁵ Overall, postgraduate trainees should certainly be aware of these findings, but medical student training should instead focus on learning the framework and correctly identifying class A and class B ECG patterns.

Teaching ECG Interpretation Strategies

No clear teaching approaches to ECG interpretation have been described in the literature, and no recommendations on knowledge translation have been formally explored. A possible educational approach to the teaching of electrocardiology could involve several methods for helping students with ECG interpretation:³⁶

1. Pattern recognition: The ECG, at its most immediate level, is a graphic image, and recognition of images is essentially recognition of patterns. These patterns can only be learned through repeated visualization of examples with a written or verbal explanation. Repeated visualization over time will help avoid “erosion” of knowledge. Examples of learning tools include periodic in-person ECG rounds, well-illustrated books or atlases, and online tools with good quality ECGs and explanations. These learning opportunities are strongly reinforced by collecting cases from the clinical encounters of the trainee that illustrate the aforementioned patterns. Some of these patterns can be found in guidelines, such as the one published by the AHA and ACC.²⁹

2. Application of published criteria: Guidelines, review papers, and books offer diagnostic criteria for many entities, such as chamber enlargement, bundle branch blocks, and abnormal Q waves. Learning these criteria and applying them to the analysis of ECGs is a commonly used learning strategy.

3. Inductive-deductive reasoning: This strategy requires a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology behind ECG patterns. It requires ECGs to be interpreted in a certain clinical context, and the goal of ECG interpretation is to answer a clinical question that is used to guide patient care. This strategy typically employs the use of algorithms to lead the interpreter to the correct diagnosis, and mastery of this skill grows from ongoing clinical experience. Examples of the “inductive-deductive reasoning” are localizing an accessory AV pathway, the differential diagnosis of narrow or wide complex tachycardias, and identifying the site of coronary artery occlusion in a patient with a STEMI.

4. Ladder diagrams: Ladder diagrams have been used for over 100 years to graphically illustrate the mechanism of arrhythmias. They can be incredibly useful to help learners visualize impulse conduction in reentry mechanisms as well as other abnormal rhythms. However, there are some rhythms that are difficult to illustrate on ladder diagrams.³⁷

5. Peer and near-peer teaching: Peer teaching occurs when learners prepare and deliver teaching material to learners of a similar training level. The expectation to deliver a teaching session encourages students to learn and organize information in thoughtful ways. It builds strong teamwork skills and has been shown to positively affect all involved learners.^38-40

Each ECG interpretation strategy has its advantages, and we recommend that students be exposed to all available approaches if teaching resources are available.

Teaching Delivery Format

Each of the above teaching strategies can be delivered to students in various ways. The following teaching formats have been previously documented in the literature:

1. Classroom-based teaching: This is a traditional learning format that takes place in a large- or small-group classroom. Typically, these sessions are led by a single instructor, and they are focused on the direct sharing of information and group discussion.⁴¹

2. Electronic practice tools: Numerous electronic tools have been developed with the purpose of providing deliberate practice to master ECG interpretation. Some of these tools employ active learner engagement, while others provide a bank of ECGs for self-directed passive learning.^42-46

3. Video lectures: Short video lectures have been created to facilitate self-directed lecture based learning. These lectures are hosted on a variety of web-based platforms, including YouTube and Vimeo.⁴⁷

4. Traditional and electronic books: Numerous traditional textbooks have been published on ECG interpretation and are designed to facilitate independent learning. Some textbooks directly deliver teaching material, while others contain sets of ECGs to allow for repetitive practice. More recently, iBooks incorporating self-assessment tools have been used to assist ECG teaching.³⁴ The advantage of these tools is that they can also be used to supplement in-person classes.

5. Games: A unique ECG interpretation learning strategy consists of using puzzles and games to learn ECGs. This is meant to improve student engagement and interest in learning ECG interpretation.⁴⁸

Given that there is currently a lack of evidence-based data to support 1 instructional format over another, we do not favor any particular one. This decision should be left to instructors and individual learners based on their preference and available resources. Further studies would be helpful to determine the effectiveness of various methods in teaching ECG interpretation and to identify any additional specific factors that facilitate learning.

Evaluation Strategies

1. Longitudinal ongoing feedback: This form of feedback universally takes place in all training programs and focuses on direct observation and point-of-care feedback by a senior healthcare professional during clinical practice. Typically, the feedback is informal and is centered around specific case presentations.

2. Formative testing: This assessment strategy is aimed at monitoring the learning of trainees and providing them with appropriate feedback. Tutors and teachers can use this data to individualize instruction and fill any training gaps that individuals and the class may have. Students themselves can use this information to encourage additional study to ensure they acquire required skills. Examples of formative testing are low-stakes in-training exams and asking audience questions during a workshop or lecture.⁴⁹

3. Summative testing: Summative assessments are created to measure the level of proficiency developed by a learner and compare it against some standard or benchmark. This form of assessment establishes the extent to which educational objectives have been met. The most common example is an end-of-term examination.

Online ECG examination has been successfully used to provide methods of testing. They are easy to distribute, highly convenient for learners, and allow the display of high-quality graphics. They can also be graded electronically, thereby minimizing the resources required to administer and grade exams.^36,50

We recommend using a combination of assessment formats to ensure the optimal evaluation of learner skill and to focus learning on areas of weakness. Summative assessments are highly valuable to ensure learners acquired the necessary ECG interpretation competencies. Remediation strategies should be available to provide additional practice to learners who do not meet competencies expected at their level of training.

The Need for ECG Interpretation Competencies and Milestones

Since the introduction of ECG in the late 1800s, there continues to be a significant variation in ECG interpretation skills among trainees and medical professionals.^4,6-12 Concerns continue to exist about the rate of missed diagnoses involving critical ECGs, leading to inappropriate patient management decisions. Despite the obvious need, teaching ECG interpretation is given little emphasis in medical education, and the curriculum remains quite disorganized. In this position paper, we call for a more structured ECG interpretation curriculum in medical education and hope to assist this process by assigning ECG patterns to 2 milestones in training: graduating medical students and first year postgraduate medical residents.

Defining competencies would help medical education programs to focus resources on teaching clinically important conditions for the appropriate level of training. We divide ECG findings into 4 categories (classes A to D), and we place emphasis on learning electrocardiographic emergencies early in training and spending less time on ECG findings that are unlikely to change patient management.

The goal is to ensure 100% recognition of class A (electrocardiographic emergencies) by the end of medical school. To ensure each medical education program fulfils this goal, a structured curriculum including a summative assessment is required.

Methods of Teaching

Various instructional mediums have been successfully implemented to teach ECG interpretation competencies, including lectures, puzzles, web-based programs, iBooks, and YouTube.^{34-41-44,47,48.51-53} A survey of clerkship directors in internal medicine revealed that 75% of clerkship programs teach ECG interpretation in a classroom lecture-based setting, 44% use teaching rounds, and only 17% utilize online/web-based instruction.³ Canadian family medicine programs have a relatively equal distribution between classroom-based, computer-based, and bedside teaching.⁵

In comparing the efficacy of instructional styles, several small comparative studies favor an electronic teaching format because of the enhanced learner interaction and visual learning, but there does not appear to be a consistently proven large advantage of 1 teaching format over another.^43,48,51,54 The overall theme emerging from this literature is the importance of repetition and active engagement in ECG interpretation, which appear to be more important than 1 particular strategy.²² Computer-based training appears to deliver these 2 qualities, unlike the traditional lecture-style passive learning model. The concept of repetition and engagement is also well supported in medical education literature outside ECG interpretation.^55,56

Given these data, we recommend that each medical education program select teaching methods based on their available resources, as long as adequate teaching time is allotted to ensure that trainees acquire the competencies defined in this publication.

Assessment Methods

It appears that the larger factor in determining ECG interpretation performance is not the learning format, but the form of assessment. Two studies have demonstrated that summative assessment substantially improves ECG interpretation performance when compared with formative assessment; in fact, this effect was so large that it overshadowed any small difference in teaching formats.^57,58 This concept aligns with medical education literature, which acknowledges that assessment drives learning by raising the stakes, thereby boosting student effort and encouraging learning to an effect much larger than can be generated by any particular learning style.^57,59 Nevertheless, well-designed formative assessment can focus students on effective learning by identifying gaps and important information.⁶⁰ Only 33% of Canadian family medicine residency programs and 71% of American clerkship programs have formal assessment of ECG interpretation skills.^3,5 There is no doubt that assessment, both formative and summative, should be implemented in all undergraduate and postgraduate medical training programs. Online assessment methods have the advantage of delivering high-quality images and a variety of question formats; hence, their use should be encouraged.^36,50,61-63

Teaching Personnel and Timing of Training

Who should teach ECG interpretation and when should this teaching take place? ECG interpretation in training programs is typically taught by attending physicians in each respective field. However, given that there is a large ECG interpretation error rate by noncardiologist physicians, we advise that ECG training content be created with input from own-specialty attending physicians and cardiologists.⁴ This teaching should take place early in medical school at the time medical students learn pathophysiology of the heart and should continue throughout training. Longitudinal training is preferred to block-based training because of improved resident satisfaction, but medical education literature did not reveal a difference in student performance with either strategy.^64-66

Despite its immense clinical value, there continues to be a lack of a comprehensive ECG interpretation curriculum in medical education programs. The goal of this position paper is to encourage the development of organized curricula in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education programs, and to ensure the acquisition of level-appropriate ECG interpretation skills while maintaining patient safety. We assist this process by grouping ECG findings into 4 classes (A to D) based on the frequency of encounter and emergent nature and by assigning them to each level of training. Methods of teaching ECG interpretation are less important and can be selected based on the available resources of each education program and student preference; however, online learning is encouraged. We also recommend that summative trainee evaluation methods be implemented in all programs to ensure that appropriate competencies are acquired and to further encourage self-directed learning. Resources should be allocated to ensure that every trainee is reaching their training milestones and should ensure that no electrocardiographic emergency (class A condition) is ever missed by a trainee. We hope that these guidelines will inform medical education systems and help prevent adverse patient outcomes caused by the misinterpretation of this valuable clinical diagnostic tool.

Disclosure

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. This manuscript did not utilize any sources of funding.

The 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) remains one of the most widely used and readily available diagnostic tests in modern medicine.¹ Reflecting the electrical behavior of the heart, this point-of-care diagnostic test is used in almost every area of medicine for diagnosis, prognostication, and selection of appropriate treatment. The ECG is sometimes the only and most efficient way of detecting life-threatening conditions, thus allowing a timely delivery of emergency care.² However, the practical power of the 12-lead ECG relies on the ability of the clinician to interpret this test correctly.

For decades, ECG interpretation has been a core component of undergraduate and postgraduate medical training.^3-5 Unfortunately, numerous studies have demonstrated alarming rates of inaccuracy and variability in interpreting ECGs among trainees at all levels of education.^4,6,7 Senior medical students have been repeatedly shown to miss 26% to 62% of acute myocardial infarctions (MI).^6,8-10 Another recent study involving internal medicine residents demonstrated that only half of the straightforward common ECGs were interpreted correctly, while 26% of trainees missed an acute MI and 56% missed ventricular tachycardia (VT).¹¹ Even cardiology subspecialty fellows demonstrated poor performance, missing up to 26% of ST-elevation MIs on ECGs that had multiple findings.¹² Inaccurate interpretations of ECGs can lead to inappropriate management decisions, adverse patient outcomes, unnecessary additional testing, and even preventable deaths.^4,13-15

Several guidelines have emphasized the importance of teaching trainees 12-lead ECG interpretation and have recognized the value of assessments in ensuring that learners acquire the necessary competencies.^16-19 Similarly, there have been many calls for more rigorous and structured curricula for ECG interpretation throughout undergraduate and postgraduate medical education.^11,16 However, we still lack a thoughtful guideline outlining the specific competencies that medical trainees should attain. This includes medical students, nurses working in hospital and in out-of-hospital settings, and residents of different specialties, including emergency medicine, cardiology, and electrophysiology (EP) fellows.

Setting goals and objectives for target learners is recognized to be the initial step and a core prerequisite for effective curriculum development.²⁰ In this publication, we summarize the objectives from previously published trainee assessments and propose reasonably attainable ECG interpretation competencies for both graduating medical students and residents at the end of their postgraduate training. This document is being endorsed by researchers and educators of 2 international societies dedicated to the study of electrical heart diseases: the International Society of Electrocardiology (ISE) and the International Society of Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology (ISHNE).

Current Competencies in Literature

We performed a systematic search to identify ECG competencies that are currently mentioned in the literature. Information was retrieved from MEDLINE (1946-2016) and EMBASE (1947-2016) by using the following MeSH terms: electrocardiogram, electrocardiography, electrocardiogram interpretation, electrocardiogram competency, medical school, medical student, undergraduate medicine, undergraduate medical education, residency education, internship, and residency. Our search was limited to English-language articles that studied physician trainees. The references of the full-length articles were examined for additional citations. The search revealed a total of 65 publications involving medical students and 120 publications involving residents. Abstracts of publications were then assessed for relevance, and the methods of the remaining articles were scrutinized for references to specific ECG interpretation objectives. This strategy narrowed the search to 9 and 14 articles involving medical students and residents, respectively. Studies were not graded for quality because the purpose of the search was to identify the specific ECG competencies that authors expected trainees to obtain. Almost all the articles proposed teaching tools and specific objectives that were defined by the investigators arbitrarily and assessed the trainee’s ability to interpret ECGs (summarized in supplementary Table).

Defining ECG Interpretation Competencies

The initial draft of proposed ECG interpretation competencies was developed at Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada. A list of ECG patterns and diagnoses previously mentioned in literature was used as a starting point. From there, each item was refined and organized into 4 main categories (see Figures 1 and 2).

Class A “Common electrocardiographic emergencies” represent patterns that are frequently seen in hospitals, in which accurate interpretation of the ECG within minutes is essential for delivering care that is potentially lifesaving to the patient (eg, ST-elevation MI).

The final distribution of ECG patterns is illustrated in Figure 2. (Figure 3 defines the learning objectives for each ECG pattern defined in Figure 2.) Here, we provide a rationale for

Class A: Common Electrocardiographic Emergencies

This group contains ECG findings that require recognition within minutes to deliver potentially lifesaving care. For this reason, undergraduate medical education programs should prioritize mastering class A conditions to minimize the risk of misdiagnosis and late recognition.

Class A patterns include ST elevation MI (STEMI) and localization of territory to ensure ST-segment elevations are seen in contiguous leads.^29,30 Students should learn the criteria for STEMI as per the “Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction” and be aware of early signs of STEMI that may be seen prior to ST-segment changes, such as hyper-acute T-waves (increased amplitude and symmetrical).³⁰

Asystole, wide complex tachycardias, and ventricular fibrillation (VF) are all crucial ECG patterns that must be identified to deliver advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) care as per the 2010 AHA Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardio care.³¹ Of note, students should understand the differential diagnosis of wide complex tachycardias and should be able to suspect VF in clinically appropriate scenarios. We included the category “unstable/symptomatic supraventricular tachycardia” to represent rapid rhythms that are supraventricular in origin, which either produce symptoms or cause impairment of vital organ function.³¹ In emergency situations, it may not be crucial to correctly identify the specific supraventricular rhythm to deliver ACLS care; hence, the specific supraventricular tachycardia diagnoses were included in Class B.

Finally, we believe that medical students should be able to recognize long QT, hypo/hyperkalemia, and distinguish types of atrioventricular (AV) block. Distinguishing types of AV block is important because both third degree AV block and second degree AV block Mobitz II can be life threatening and require further investigation or emergency treatment in an inpatient setting.³² Prompt recognition of long QT is crucial because it can be associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This includes a polymorphic pattern characterized by the twisting of QRS peaks around the baseline (torsades des pointes), which can eventually lead to VF.

Class B: Common Nonemergency Patterns

Class B patterns represent common findings that are seen on a daily basis that may impact patient care in a clinically appropriate context. Diagnoses in this section were divided into “tachycardia syndromes,” “bradycardia syndromes,” “conduction abnormalities,” “ischemia,” and “other.”

Undergraduate trainees should become proficient in identifying the cause of bradycardia and distinguishing types of AV blocks. Similarly, they should also have an approach to differentiate tachycardia syndromes.^33,34 These skills are required to correctly manage patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings. They should be taught in undergraduate programs and reinforced in postgraduate training.

Common findings, such as bundle branch blocks, left anterior fascicular block, premature ventricular/atrial complexes, electronic pacemakers, and left ventricular hypertrophy, are essential to the daily interpretation of ECGs. Junior learners should be proficient in recognizing these patterns. Findings consistent with pericarditis are not uncommon and can be very helpful to guide the clinician to the diagnosis. Notable exceptions from the medical student competency list include detection of lead misplacement, common artifacts, nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay, interatrial block, and benign early repolarization. These findings require a deeper understanding of electrocardiography and would be more appropriate for senior learners.

Class C: Uncommon Electrocardiographic Emergencies

Class C findings represent uncommon conditions that, if recognized, can prevent serious adverse patient outcomes. These include preexcitation, STEMI with preexisting left bundle branch block sinus pauses, Brugada pattern, hypothermia, effects of toxic drugs, ventricular aneurysm, and right ventricular hypertrophy. The recognition of these patterns is crucial to avoid severe adverse patient outcomes, and independent practicing physicians should be aware of these findings. However, given that a high proportion of senior medical students miss common electrocardiographic emergencies, undergraduate medical education programs should instead focus resources on ensuring medical students are proficient in identifying class A and class B conditions.^6,8-10 Postgraduate programs should ensure that postgraduate trainees can identify these potentially life-threatening conditions (see section “How to Teach Electrocardiology”).

Class D: Uncommon and Nonemergency Patterns

Class D findings represent less common findings that are not seen every day and do not require urgent medical attention. These include right atrial abnormality, left posterior fascicular block, low atrial rhythms, and electrolyte abnormalities that exclude potassium. Notably, electrolyte abnormalities are important to identify; however, typically, treatment is guided by the lab results.³⁵ Overall, postgraduate trainees should certainly be aware of these findings, but medical student training should instead focus on learning the framework and correctly identifying class A and class B ECG patterns.

Teaching ECG Interpretation Strategies

No clear teaching approaches to ECG interpretation have been described in the literature, and no recommendations on knowledge translation have been formally explored. A possible educational approach to the teaching of electrocardiology could involve several methods for helping students with ECG interpretation:³⁶

1. Pattern recognition: The ECG, at its most immediate level, is a graphic image, and recognition of images is essentially recognition of patterns. These patterns can only be learned through repeated visualization of examples with a written or verbal explanation. Repeated visualization over time will help avoid “erosion” of knowledge. Examples of learning tools include periodic in-person ECG rounds, well-illustrated books or atlases, and online tools with good quality ECGs and explanations. These learning opportunities are strongly reinforced by collecting cases from the clinical encounters of the trainee that illustrate the aforementioned patterns. Some of these patterns can be found in guidelines, such as the one published by the AHA and ACC.²⁹

2. Application of published criteria: Guidelines, review papers, and books offer diagnostic criteria for many entities, such as chamber enlargement, bundle branch blocks, and abnormal Q waves. Learning these criteria and applying them to the analysis of ECGs is a commonly used learning strategy.

3. Inductive-deductive reasoning: This strategy requires a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology behind ECG patterns. It requires ECGs to be interpreted in a certain clinical context, and the goal of ECG interpretation is to answer a clinical question that is used to guide patient care. This strategy typically employs the use of algorithms to lead the interpreter to the correct diagnosis, and mastery of this skill grows from ongoing clinical experience. Examples of the “inductive-deductive reasoning” are localizing an accessory AV pathway, the differential diagnosis of narrow or wide complex tachycardias, and identifying the site of coronary artery occlusion in a patient with a STEMI.

4. Ladder diagrams: Ladder diagrams have been used for over 100 years to graphically illustrate the mechanism of arrhythmias. They can be incredibly useful to help learners visualize impulse conduction in reentry mechanisms as well as other abnormal rhythms. However, there are some rhythms that are difficult to illustrate on ladder diagrams.³⁷

5. Peer and near-peer teaching: Peer teaching occurs when learners prepare and deliver teaching material to learners of a similar training level. The expectation to deliver a teaching session encourages students to learn and organize information in thoughtful ways. It builds strong teamwork skills and has been shown to positively affect all involved learners.^38-40

Each ECG interpretation strategy has its advantages, and we recommend that students be exposed to all available approaches if teaching resources are available.

Teaching Delivery Format

Each of the above teaching strategies can be delivered to students in various ways. The following teaching formats have been previously documented in the literature:

1. Classroom-based teaching: This is a traditional learning format that takes place in a large- or small-group classroom. Typically, these sessions are led by a single instructor, and they are focused on the direct sharing of information and group discussion.⁴¹

2. Electronic practice tools: Numerous electronic tools have been developed with the purpose of providing deliberate practice to master ECG interpretation. Some of these tools employ active learner engagement, while others provide a bank of ECGs for self-directed passive learning.^42-46

3. Video lectures: Short video lectures have been created to facilitate self-directed lecture based learning. These lectures are hosted on a variety of web-based platforms, including YouTube and Vimeo.⁴⁷

4. Traditional and electronic books: Numerous traditional textbooks have been published on ECG interpretation and are designed to facilitate independent learning. Some textbooks directly deliver teaching material, while others contain sets of ECGs to allow for repetitive practice. More recently, iBooks incorporating self-assessment tools have been used to assist ECG teaching.³⁴ The advantage of these tools is that they can also be used to supplement in-person classes.

5. Games: A unique ECG interpretation learning strategy consists of using puzzles and games to learn ECGs. This is meant to improve student engagement and interest in learning ECG interpretation.⁴⁸

Given that there is currently a lack of evidence-based data to support 1 instructional format over another, we do not favor any particular one. This decision should be left to instructors and individual learners based on their preference and available resources. Further studies would be helpful to determine the effectiveness of various methods in teaching ECG interpretation and to identify any additional specific factors that facilitate learning.

Evaluation Strategies

1. Longitudinal ongoing feedback: This form of feedback universally takes place in all training programs and focuses on direct observation and point-of-care feedback by a senior healthcare professional during clinical practice. Typically, the feedback is informal and is centered around specific case presentations.

2. Formative testing: This assessment strategy is aimed at monitoring the learning of trainees and providing them with appropriate feedback. Tutors and teachers can use this data to individualize instruction and fill any training gaps that individuals and the class may have. Students themselves can use this information to encourage additional study to ensure they acquire required skills. Examples of formative testing are low-stakes in-training exams and asking audience questions during a workshop or lecture.⁴⁹

3. Summative testing: Summative assessments are created to measure the level of proficiency developed by a learner and compare it against some standard or benchmark. This form of assessment establishes the extent to which educational objectives have been met. The most common example is an end-of-term examination.

Online ECG examination has been successfully used to provide methods of testing. They are easy to distribute, highly convenient for learners, and allow the display of high-quality graphics. They can also be graded electronically, thereby minimizing the resources required to administer and grade exams.^36,50

We recommend using a combination of assessment formats to ensure the optimal evaluation of learner skill and to focus learning on areas of weakness. Summative assessments are highly valuable to ensure learners acquired the necessary ECG interpretation competencies. Remediation strategies should be available to provide additional practice to learners who do not meet competencies expected at their level of training.

The Need for ECG Interpretation Competencies and Milestones

Since the introduction of ECG in the late 1800s, there continues to be a significant variation in ECG interpretation skills among trainees and medical professionals.^4,6-12 Concerns continue to exist about the rate of missed diagnoses involving critical ECGs, leading to inappropriate patient management decisions. Despite the obvious need, teaching ECG interpretation is given little emphasis in medical education, and the curriculum remains quite disorganized. In this position paper, we call for a more structured ECG interpretation curriculum in medical education and hope to assist this process by assigning ECG patterns to 2 milestones in training: graduating medical students and first year postgraduate medical residents.

Defining competencies would help medical education programs to focus resources on teaching clinically important conditions for the appropriate level of training. We divide ECG findings into 4 categories (classes A to D), and we place emphasis on learning electrocardiographic emergencies early in training and spending less time on ECG findings that are unlikely to change patient management.

The goal is to ensure 100% recognition of class A (electrocardiographic emergencies) by the end of medical school. To ensure each medical education program fulfils this goal, a structured curriculum including a summative assessment is required.

Methods of Teaching

Various instructional mediums have been successfully implemented to teach ECG interpretation competencies, including lectures, puzzles, web-based programs, iBooks, and YouTube.^{34-41-44,47,48.51-53} A survey of clerkship directors in internal medicine revealed that 75% of clerkship programs teach ECG interpretation in a classroom lecture-based setting, 44% use teaching rounds, and only 17% utilize online/web-based instruction.³ Canadian family medicine programs have a relatively equal distribution between classroom-based, computer-based, and bedside teaching.⁵

In comparing the efficacy of instructional styles, several small comparative studies favor an electronic teaching format because of the enhanced learner interaction and visual learning, but there does not appear to be a consistently proven large advantage of 1 teaching format over another.^43,48,51,54 The overall theme emerging from this literature is the importance of repetition and active engagement in ECG interpretation, which appear to be more important than 1 particular strategy.²² Computer-based training appears to deliver these 2 qualities, unlike the traditional lecture-style passive learning model. The concept of repetition and engagement is also well supported in medical education literature outside ECG interpretation.^55,56

Given these data, we recommend that each medical education program select teaching methods based on their available resources, as long as adequate teaching time is allotted to ensure that trainees acquire the competencies defined in this publication.

Assessment Methods

It appears that the larger factor in determining ECG interpretation performance is not the learning format, but the form of assessment. Two studies have demonstrated that summative assessment substantially improves ECG interpretation performance when compared with formative assessment; in fact, this effect was so large that it overshadowed any small difference in teaching formats.^57,58 This concept aligns with medical education literature, which acknowledges that assessment drives learning by raising the stakes, thereby boosting student effort and encouraging learning to an effect much larger than can be generated by any particular learning style.^57,59 Nevertheless, well-designed formative assessment can focus students on effective learning by identifying gaps and important information.⁶⁰ Only 33% of Canadian family medicine residency programs and 71% of American clerkship programs have formal assessment of ECG interpretation skills.^3,5 There is no doubt that assessment, both formative and summative, should be implemented in all undergraduate and postgraduate medical training programs. Online assessment methods have the advantage of delivering high-quality images and a variety of question formats; hence, their use should be encouraged.^36,50,61-63

Teaching Personnel and Timing of Training

Who should teach ECG interpretation and when should this teaching take place? ECG interpretation in training programs is typically taught by attending physicians in each respective field. However, given that there is a large ECG interpretation error rate by noncardiologist physicians, we advise that ECG training content be created with input from own-specialty attending physicians and cardiologists.⁴ This teaching should take place early in medical school at the time medical students learn pathophysiology of the heart and should continue throughout training. Longitudinal training is preferred to block-based training because of improved resident satisfaction, but medical education literature did not reveal a difference in student performance with either strategy.^64-66

Despite its immense clinical value, there continues to be a lack of a comprehensive ECG interpretation curriculum in medical education programs. The goal of this position paper is to encourage the development of organized curricula in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education programs, and to ensure the acquisition of level-appropriate ECG interpretation skills while maintaining patient safety. We assist this process by grouping ECG findings into 4 classes (A to D) based on the frequency of encounter and emergent nature and by assigning them to each level of training. Methods of teaching ECG interpretation are less important and can be selected based on the available resources of each education program and student preference; however, online learning is encouraged. We also recommend that summative trainee evaluation methods be implemented in all programs to ensure that appropriate competencies are acquired and to further encourage self-directed learning. Resources should be allocated to ensure that every trainee is reaching their training milestones and should ensure that no electrocardiographic emergency (class A condition) is ever missed by a trainee. We hope that these guidelines will inform medical education systems and help prevent adverse patient outcomes caused by the misinterpretation of this valuable clinical diagnostic tool.

Disclosure

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. This manuscript did not utilize any sources of funding.

The 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) remains one of the most widely used and readily available diagnostic tests in modern medicine.¹ Reflecting the electrical behavior of the heart, this point-of-care diagnostic test is used in almost every area of medicine for diagnosis, prognostication, and selection of appropriate treatment. The ECG is sometimes the only and most efficient way of detecting life-threatening conditions, thus allowing a timely delivery of emergency care.² However, the practical power of the 12-lead ECG relies on the ability of the clinician to interpret this test correctly.

For decades, ECG interpretation has been a core component of undergraduate and postgraduate medical training.^3-5 Unfortunately, numerous studies have demonstrated alarming rates of inaccuracy and variability in interpreting ECGs among trainees at all levels of education.^4,6,7 Senior medical students have been repeatedly shown to miss 26% to 62% of acute myocardial infarctions (MI).^6,8-10 Another recent study involving internal medicine residents demonstrated that only half of the straightforward common ECGs were interpreted correctly, while 26% of trainees missed an acute MI and 56% missed ventricular tachycardia (VT).¹¹ Even cardiology subspecialty fellows demonstrated poor performance, missing up to 26% of ST-elevation MIs on ECGs that had multiple findings.¹² Inaccurate interpretations of ECGs can lead to inappropriate management decisions, adverse patient outcomes, unnecessary additional testing, and even preventable deaths.^4,13-15

Several guidelines have emphasized the importance of teaching trainees 12-lead ECG interpretation and have recognized the value of assessments in ensuring that learners acquire the necessary competencies.^16-19 Similarly, there have been many calls for more rigorous and structured curricula for ECG interpretation throughout undergraduate and postgraduate medical education.^11,16 However, we still lack a thoughtful guideline outlining the specific competencies that medical trainees should attain. This includes medical students, nurses working in hospital and in out-of-hospital settings, and residents of different specialties, including emergency medicine, cardiology, and electrophysiology (EP) fellows.

Setting goals and objectives for target learners is recognized to be the initial step and a core prerequisite for effective curriculum development.²⁰ In this publication, we summarize the objectives from previously published trainee assessments and propose reasonably attainable ECG interpretation competencies for both graduating medical students and residents at the end of their postgraduate training. This document is being endorsed by researchers and educators of 2 international societies dedicated to the study of electrical heart diseases: the International Society of Electrocardiology (ISE) and the International Society of Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology (ISHNE).

Current Competencies in Literature

We performed a systematic search to identify ECG competencies that are currently mentioned in the literature. Information was retrieved from MEDLINE (1946-2016) and EMBASE (1947-2016) by using the following MeSH terms: electrocardiogram, electrocardiography, electrocardiogram interpretation, electrocardiogram competency, medical school, medical student, undergraduate medicine, undergraduate medical education, residency education, internship, and residency. Our search was limited to English-language articles that studied physician trainees. The references of the full-length articles were examined for additional citations. The search revealed a total of 65 publications involving medical students and 120 publications involving residents. Abstracts of publications were then assessed for relevance, and the methods of the remaining articles were scrutinized for references to specific ECG interpretation objectives. This strategy narrowed the search to 9 and 14 articles involving medical students and residents, respectively. Studies were not graded for quality because the purpose of the search was to identify the specific ECG competencies that authors expected trainees to obtain. Almost all the articles proposed teaching tools and specific objectives that were defined by the investigators arbitrarily and assessed the trainee’s ability to interpret ECGs (summarized in supplementary Table).

Defining ECG Interpretation Competencies

The initial draft of proposed ECG interpretation competencies was developed at Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada. A list of ECG patterns and diagnoses previously mentioned in literature was used as a starting point. From there, each item was refined and organized into 4 main categories (see Figures 1 and 2).

Class A “Common electrocardiographic emergencies” represent patterns that are frequently seen in hospitals, in which accurate interpretation of the ECG within minutes is essential for delivering care that is potentially lifesaving to the patient (eg, ST-elevation MI).

The final distribution of ECG patterns is illustrated in Figure 2. (Figure 3 defines the learning objectives for each ECG pattern defined in Figure 2.) Here, we provide a rationale for

Class A: Common Electrocardiographic Emergencies

This group contains ECG findings that require recognition within minutes to deliver potentially lifesaving care. For this reason, undergraduate medical education programs should prioritize mastering class A conditions to minimize the risk of misdiagnosis and late recognition.

Class A patterns include ST elevation MI (STEMI) and localization of territory to ensure ST-segment elevations are seen in contiguous leads.^29,30 Students should learn the criteria for STEMI as per the “Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction” and be aware of early signs of STEMI that may be seen prior to ST-segment changes, such as hyper-acute T-waves (increased amplitude and symmetrical).³⁰

Asystole, wide complex tachycardias, and ventricular fibrillation (VF) are all crucial ECG patterns that must be identified to deliver advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) care as per the 2010 AHA Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardio care.³¹ Of note, students should understand the differential diagnosis of wide complex tachycardias and should be able to suspect VF in clinically appropriate scenarios. We included the category “unstable/symptomatic supraventricular tachycardia” to represent rapid rhythms that are supraventricular in origin, which either produce symptoms or cause impairment of vital organ function.³¹ In emergency situations, it may not be crucial to correctly identify the specific supraventricular rhythm to deliver ACLS care; hence, the specific supraventricular tachycardia diagnoses were included in Class B.

Finally, we believe that medical students should be able to recognize long QT, hypo/hyperkalemia, and distinguish types of atrioventricular (AV) block. Distinguishing types of AV block is important because both third degree AV block and second degree AV block Mobitz II can be life threatening and require further investigation or emergency treatment in an inpatient setting.³² Prompt recognition of long QT is crucial because it can be associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This includes a polymorphic pattern characterized by the twisting of QRS peaks around the baseline (torsades des pointes), which can eventually lead to VF.

Class B: Common Nonemergency Patterns

Class B patterns represent common findings that are seen on a daily basis that may impact patient care in a clinically appropriate context. Diagnoses in this section were divided into “tachycardia syndromes,” “bradycardia syndromes,” “conduction abnormalities,” “ischemia,” and “other.”

Undergraduate trainees should become proficient in identifying the cause of bradycardia and distinguishing types of AV blocks. Similarly, they should also have an approach to differentiate tachycardia syndromes.^33,34 These skills are required to correctly manage patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings. They should be taught in undergraduate programs and reinforced in postgraduate training.

Common findings, such as bundle branch blocks, left anterior fascicular block, premature ventricular/atrial complexes, electronic pacemakers, and left ventricular hypertrophy, are essential to the daily interpretation of ECGs. Junior learners should be proficient in recognizing these patterns. Findings consistent with pericarditis are not uncommon and can be very helpful to guide the clinician to the diagnosis. Notable exceptions from the medical student competency list include detection of lead misplacement, common artifacts, nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay, interatrial block, and benign early repolarization. These findings require a deeper understanding of electrocardiography and would be more appropriate for senior learners.

Class C: Uncommon Electrocardiographic Emergencies

Class C findings represent uncommon conditions that, if recognized, can prevent serious adverse patient outcomes. These include preexcitation, STEMI with preexisting left bundle branch block sinus pauses, Brugada pattern, hypothermia, effects of toxic drugs, ventricular aneurysm, and right ventricular hypertrophy. The recognition of these patterns is crucial to avoid severe adverse patient outcomes, and independent practicing physicians should be aware of these findings. However, given that a high proportion of senior medical students miss common electrocardiographic emergencies, undergraduate medical education programs should instead focus resources on ensuring medical students are proficient in identifying class A and class B conditions.^6,8-10 Postgraduate programs should ensure that postgraduate trainees can identify these potentially life-threatening conditions (see section “How to Teach Electrocardiology”).

Class D: Uncommon and Nonemergency Patterns

Class D findings represent less common findings that are not seen every day and do not require urgent medical attention. These include right atrial abnormality, left posterior fascicular block, low atrial rhythms, and electrolyte abnormalities that exclude potassium. Notably, electrolyte abnormalities are important to identify; however, typically, treatment is guided by the lab results.³⁵ Overall, postgraduate trainees should certainly be aware of these findings, but medical student training should instead focus on learning the framework and correctly identifying class A and class B ECG patterns.

Teaching ECG Interpretation Strategies

No clear teaching approaches to ECG interpretation have been described in the literature, and no recommendations on knowledge translation have been formally explored. A possible educational approach to the teaching of electrocardiology could involve several methods for helping students with ECG interpretation:³⁶

1. Pattern recognition: The ECG, at its most immediate level, is a graphic image, and recognition of images is essentially recognition of patterns. These patterns can only be learned through repeated visualization of examples with a written or verbal explanation. Repeated visualization over time will help avoid “erosion” of knowledge. Examples of learning tools include periodic in-person ECG rounds, well-illustrated books or atlases, and online tools with good quality ECGs and explanations. These learning opportunities are strongly reinforced by collecting cases from the clinical encounters of the trainee that illustrate the aforementioned patterns. Some of these patterns can be found in guidelines, such as the one published by the AHA and ACC.²⁹

2. Application of published criteria: Guidelines, review papers, and books offer diagnostic criteria for many entities, such as chamber enlargement, bundle branch blocks, and abnormal Q waves. Learning these criteria and applying them to the analysis of ECGs is a commonly used learning strategy.

3. Inductive-deductive reasoning: This strategy requires a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology behind ECG patterns. It requires ECGs to be interpreted in a certain clinical context, and the goal of ECG interpretation is to answer a clinical question that is used to guide patient care. This strategy typically employs the use of algorithms to lead the interpreter to the correct diagnosis, and mastery of this skill grows from ongoing clinical experience. Examples of the “inductive-deductive reasoning” are localizing an accessory AV pathway, the differential diagnosis of narrow or wide complex tachycardias, and identifying the site of coronary artery occlusion in a patient with a STEMI.

4. Ladder diagrams: Ladder diagrams have been used for over 100 years to graphically illustrate the mechanism of arrhythmias. They can be incredibly useful to help learners visualize impulse conduction in reentry mechanisms as well as other abnormal rhythms. However, there are some rhythms that are difficult to illustrate on ladder diagrams.³⁷

5. Peer and near-peer teaching: Peer teaching occurs when learners prepare and deliver teaching material to learners of a similar training level. The expectation to deliver a teaching session encourages students to learn and organize information in thoughtful ways. It builds strong teamwork skills and has been shown to positively affect all involved learners.^38-40

Each ECG interpretation strategy has its advantages, and we recommend that students be exposed to all available approaches if teaching resources are available.

Teaching Delivery Format

Each of the above teaching strategies can be delivered to students in various ways. The following teaching formats have been previously documented in the literature:

1. Classroom-based teaching: This is a traditional learning format that takes place in a large- or small-group classroom. Typically, these sessions are led by a single instructor, and they are focused on the direct sharing of information and group discussion.⁴¹

2. Electronic practice tools: Numerous electronic tools have been developed with the purpose of providing deliberate practice to master ECG interpretation. Some of these tools employ active learner engagement, while others provide a bank of ECGs for self-directed passive learning.^42-46

3. Video lectures: Short video lectures have been created to facilitate self-directed lecture based learning. These lectures are hosted on a variety of web-based platforms, including YouTube and Vimeo.⁴⁷

4. Traditional and electronic books: Numerous traditional textbooks have been published on ECG interpretation and are designed to facilitate independent learning. Some textbooks directly deliver teaching material, while others contain sets of ECGs to allow for repetitive practice. More recently, iBooks incorporating self-assessment tools have been used to assist ECG teaching.³⁴ The advantage of these tools is that they can also be used to supplement in-person classes.

5. Games: A unique ECG interpretation learning strategy consists of using puzzles and games to learn ECGs. This is meant to improve student engagement and interest in learning ECG interpretation.⁴⁸

Given that there is currently a lack of evidence-based data to support 1 instructional format over another, we do not favor any particular one. This decision should be left to instructors and individual learners based on their preference and available resources. Further studies would be helpful to determine the effectiveness of various methods in teaching ECG interpretation and to identify any additional specific factors that facilitate learning.

Evaluation Strategies

1. Longitudinal ongoing feedback: This form of feedback universally takes place in all training programs and focuses on direct observation and point-of-care feedback by a senior healthcare professional during clinical practice. Typically, the feedback is informal and is centered around specific case presentations.

2. Formative testing: This assessment strategy is aimed at monitoring the learning of trainees and providing them with appropriate feedback. Tutors and teachers can use this data to individualize instruction and fill any training gaps that individuals and the class may have. Students themselves can use this information to encourage additional study to ensure they acquire required skills. Examples of formative testing are low-stakes in-training exams and asking audience questions during a workshop or lecture.⁴⁹

3. Summative testing: Summative assessments are created to measure the level of proficiency developed by a learner and compare it against some standard or benchmark. This form of assessment establishes the extent to which educational objectives have been met. The most common example is an end-of-term examination.

Online ECG examination has been successfully used to provide methods of testing. They are easy to distribute, highly convenient for learners, and allow the display of high-quality graphics. They can also be graded electronically, thereby minimizing the resources required to administer and grade exams.^36,50

We recommend using a combination of assessment formats to ensure the optimal evaluation of learner skill and to focus learning on areas of weakness. Summative assessments are highly valuable to ensure learners acquired the necessary ECG interpretation competencies. Remediation strategies should be available to provide additional practice to learners who do not meet competencies expected at their level of training.

The Need for ECG Interpretation Competencies and Milestones

Since the introduction of ECG in the late 1800s, there continues to be a significant variation in ECG interpretation skills among trainees and medical professionals.^4,6-12 Concerns continue to exist about the rate of missed diagnoses involving critical ECGs, leading to inappropriate patient management decisions. Despite the obvious need, teaching ECG interpretation is given little emphasis in medical education, and the curriculum remains quite disorganized. In this position paper, we call for a more structured ECG interpretation curriculum in medical education and hope to assist this process by assigning ECG patterns to 2 milestones in training: graduating medical students and first year postgraduate medical residents.

Defining competencies would help medical education programs to focus resources on teaching clinically important conditions for the appropriate level of training. We divide ECG findings into 4 categories (classes A to D), and we place emphasis on learning electrocardiographic emergencies early in training and spending less time on ECG findings that are unlikely to change patient management.

The goal is to ensure 100% recognition of class A (electrocardiographic emergencies) by the end of medical school. To ensure each medical education program fulfils this goal, a structured curriculum including a summative assessment is required.

Methods of Teaching

Various instructional mediums have been successfully implemented to teach ECG interpretation competencies, including lectures, puzzles, web-based programs, iBooks, and YouTube.^{34-41-44,47,48.51-53} A survey of clerkship directors in internal medicine revealed that 75% of clerkship programs teach ECG interpretation in a classroom lecture-based setting, 44% use teaching rounds, and only 17% utilize online/web-based instruction.³ Canadian family medicine programs have a relatively equal distribution between classroom-based, computer-based, and bedside teaching.⁵

In comparing the efficacy of instructional styles, several small comparative studies favor an electronic teaching format because of the enhanced learner interaction and visual learning, but there does not appear to be a consistently proven large advantage of 1 teaching format over another.^43,48,51,54 The overall theme emerging from this literature is the importance of repetition and active engagement in ECG interpretation, which appear to be more important than 1 particular strategy.²² Computer-based training appears to deliver these 2 qualities, unlike the traditional lecture-style passive learning model. The concept of repetition and engagement is also well supported in medical education literature outside ECG interpretation.^55,56

Given these data, we recommend that each medical education program select teaching methods based on their available resources, as long as adequate teaching time is allotted to ensure that trainees acquire the competencies defined in this publication.

Assessment Methods

It appears that the larger factor in determining ECG interpretation performance is not the learning format, but the form of assessment. Two studies have demonstrated that summative assessment substantially improves ECG interpretation performance when compared with formative assessment; in fact, this effect was so large that it overshadowed any small difference in teaching formats.^57,58 This concept aligns with medical education literature, which acknowledges that assessment drives learning by raising the stakes, thereby boosting student effort and encouraging learning to an effect much larger than can be generated by any particular learning style.^57,59 Nevertheless, well-designed formative assessment can focus students on effective learning by identifying gaps and important information.⁶⁰ Only 33% of Canadian family medicine residency programs and 71% of American clerkship programs have formal assessment of ECG interpretation skills.^3,5 There is no doubt that assessment, both formative and summative, should be implemented in all undergraduate and postgraduate medical training programs. Online assessment methods have the advantage of delivering high-quality images and a variety of question formats; hence, their use should be encouraged.^36,50,61-63

Teaching Personnel and Timing of Training

Who should teach ECG interpretation and when should this teaching take place? ECG interpretation in training programs is typically taught by attending physicians in each respective field. However, given that there is a large ECG interpretation error rate by noncardiologist physicians, we advise that ECG training content be created with input from own-specialty attending physicians and cardiologists.⁴ This teaching should take place early in medical school at the time medical students learn pathophysiology of the heart and should continue throughout training. Longitudinal training is preferred to block-based training because of improved resident satisfaction, but medical education literature did not reveal a difference in student performance with either strategy.^64-66

Despite its immense clinical value, there continues to be a lack of a comprehensive ECG interpretation curriculum in medical education programs. The goal of this position paper is to encourage the development of organized curricula in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education programs, and to ensure the acquisition of level-appropriate ECG interpretation skills while maintaining patient safety. We assist this process by grouping ECG findings into 4 classes (A to D) based on the frequency of encounter and emergent nature and by assigning them to each level of training. Methods of teaching ECG interpretation are less important and can be selected based on the available resources of each education program and student preference; however, online learning is encouraged. We also recommend that summative trainee evaluation methods be implemented in all programs to ensure that appropriate competencies are acquired and to further encourage self-directed learning. Resources should be allocated to ensure that every trainee is reaching their training milestones and should ensure that no electrocardiographic emergency (class A condition) is ever missed by a trainee. We hope that these guidelines will inform medical education systems and help prevent adverse patient outcomes caused by the misinterpretation of this valuable clinical diagnostic tool.

Disclosure

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. This manuscript did not utilize any sources of funding.

Slightly more than 41% of health care personnel who had the flu during the 2014-2015 influenza season went to work while they were ill, according to an annual survey.

Physicians, however, were well above this average, with 63% reporting they had worked with an influenza-like illness (ILI); they were not quite as far above average as pharmacists, though, who had a 67% rate of “presenteeism” – the highest among all of the health care occupations included in the survey, said Sophia Chiu, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and her associates.

[email protected]

Slightly more than 41% of health care personnel who had the flu during the 2014-2015 influenza season went to work while they were ill, according to an annual survey.

Physicians, however, were well above this average, with 63% reporting they had worked with an influenza-like illness (ILI); they were not quite as far above average as pharmacists, though, who had a 67% rate of “presenteeism” – the highest among all of the health care occupations included in the survey, said Sophia Chiu, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and her associates.

[email protected]

Slightly more than 41% of health care personnel who had the flu during the 2014-2015 influenza season went to work while they were ill, according to an annual survey.

Physicians, however, were well above this average, with 63% reporting they had worked with an influenza-like illness (ILI); they were not quite as far above average as pharmacists, though, who had a 67% rate of “presenteeism” – the highest among all of the health care occupations included in the survey, said Sophia Chiu, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and her associates.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission continues to mull the specifics of its proposed recommendation to scrap the Quality Payment Program’s MIPS component.

The basics of the MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System) replacement have not changed. The proposal calls for creation of a voluntary value program (VVP) that would withhold a percentage – currently 2% – of Medicare payments for physicians who are not part of an advanced alternative payment model (APM) under the Quality Payment Program of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

There would be two ways to recapture the withheld pay. The first would be to join an APM. The second would be to participate in a VVP by entering a voluntary reporting group. Under the proposal, VVPs would be at least 10 providers who would report together on population-based measures, patient experience, and cost measures, according to staff presentations given Nov. 2 at a meeting of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Proposed measures would be patient oriented, would encourage coordination across all providers, would promote positive change in the delivery system, and would be less burdensome to providers. Measures would be more in line with those employed by APMs – important because the overall goal would be encouraging participation in an APM rather than permanently lingering in the VVP.

To that end, MedPAC staff member Kate Bloniarz noted during the presentation of the VVP proposal that the total payments in the program “should be capped to be less attractive than joining an [advanced] APM. This comes from a general sense among commissioners that clinicians should not be able to receive large bonuses” for remaining in Medicare fee-for-service.

MedPAC staff recommended that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services offer a fallback group that would provide an option to providers that would otherwise not have access to other groups to join.

Commission member Kathy Buto, former vice president of global health policy at Johnson & Johnson, suggested withholding be increased to perhaps 3%, with providers able to recoup 2% in the VVP and 3% in an APM, to further incentivize APM participation.

Staff noted that certain quality measures and process measures would be lost if MIPS were to go away, but they could be accounted for in other channels, such as through electronic health records and registries.

Most commissioners expressed support for both the repeal of MIPS and the conceptual framework for the new VVP, although many sought more details, particularly in the handling of specialists.

“I don’t know that we want to try to make the VVP do too much, especially when you get into the specialties that are very, very episodic,” said commission member Brian DeBusk, PhD, CEO of DeRoyal Industries. “The classic example would be a joint replacement. … I hope to see some specialist APMs developed in parallel and I think that is going to take some pressure off to try to make the VVP be all things to all people.”

Commission member Pat Wang, CEO of Healthfirst, offered a possible solution.

“I would suggest that we try to think about doing that in the context of something that is a little bit, perhaps, not full bore APM, but a VVP for specialists with their own metrics that are not big, gigantic readmissions,” she said. “Those are very broad population health metrics [that may not work for specialists].”

But at least two commission members voiced their dissent to the proposal as presented, with one going so far as to saying that MIPS should not be repealed.

David Nerenz, PhD, of the Henry Ford Health System, said that he had “very serious concerns about the VVP part of this proposal [and] they are such that if it comes to us as a recommendation in more or less its current form I will not support it.”

He called it “pretty significant social engineering in the structure of medical practice and I think we are doing it in the absence of what to me would be compelling evidence that this large group structure we are talking about is good.

“I also don’t see any evidence that beneficiaries find value in the set of measures we are talking about,” Dr. Nerenz added. He is on the record as supporting the repeal of MIPS.

Commission member Alice Coombs, MD, of Weymouth, Mass., was the lone voice speaking in support of MIPS: “I think MIPS has a lot of problems … but there are some things that are coming out of MIPS that are actually good.”

She called the VVP proposal “inadequate” and took issue with the measures. As a practicing physician, she said that she favors more population health measures that will affect patient outcomes.

MedPAC staff expect to have a draft recommendation prepared for discussion at the December meeting, with a final vote on what will be presented to Congress coming as soon as January.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission continues to mull the specifics of its proposed recommendation to scrap the Quality Payment Program’s MIPS component.

The basics of the MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System) replacement have not changed. The proposal calls for creation of a voluntary value program (VVP) that would withhold a percentage – currently 2% – of Medicare payments for physicians who are not part of an advanced alternative payment model (APM) under the Quality Payment Program of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

There would be two ways to recapture the withheld pay. The first would be to join an APM. The second would be to participate in a VVP by entering a voluntary reporting group. Under the proposal, VVPs would be at least 10 providers who would report together on population-based measures, patient experience, and cost measures, according to staff presentations given Nov. 2 at a meeting of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Proposed measures would be patient oriented, would encourage coordination across all providers, would promote positive change in the delivery system, and would be less burdensome to providers. Measures would be more in line with those employed by APMs – important because the overall goal would be encouraging participation in an APM rather than permanently lingering in the VVP.

To that end, MedPAC staff member Kate Bloniarz noted during the presentation of the VVP proposal that the total payments in the program “should be capped to be less attractive than joining an [advanced] APM. This comes from a general sense among commissioners that clinicians should not be able to receive large bonuses” for remaining in Medicare fee-for-service.

MedPAC staff recommended that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services offer a fallback group that would provide an option to providers that would otherwise not have access to other groups to join.

Commission member Kathy Buto, former vice president of global health policy at Johnson & Johnson, suggested withholding be increased to perhaps 3%, with providers able to recoup 2% in the VVP and 3% in an APM, to further incentivize APM participation.

Staff noted that certain quality measures and process measures would be lost if MIPS were to go away, but they could be accounted for in other channels, such as through electronic health records and registries.

Most commissioners expressed support for both the repeal of MIPS and the conceptual framework for the new VVP, although many sought more details, particularly in the handling of specialists.

“I don’t know that we want to try to make the VVP do too much, especially when you get into the specialties that are very, very episodic,” said commission member Brian DeBusk, PhD, CEO of DeRoyal Industries. “The classic example would be a joint replacement. … I hope to see some specialist APMs developed in parallel and I think that is going to take some pressure off to try to make the VVP be all things to all people.”

Commission member Pat Wang, CEO of Healthfirst, offered a possible solution.

“I would suggest that we try to think about doing that in the context of something that is a little bit, perhaps, not full bore APM, but a VVP for specialists with their own metrics that are not big, gigantic readmissions,” she said. “Those are very broad population health metrics [that may not work for specialists].”

But at least two commission members voiced their dissent to the proposal as presented, with one going so far as to saying that MIPS should not be repealed.

David Nerenz, PhD, of the Henry Ford Health System, said that he had “very serious concerns about the VVP part of this proposal [and] they are such that if it comes to us as a recommendation in more or less its current form I will not support it.”

He called it “pretty significant social engineering in the structure of medical practice and I think we are doing it in the absence of what to me would be compelling evidence that this large group structure we are talking about is good.

“I also don’t see any evidence that beneficiaries find value in the set of measures we are talking about,” Dr. Nerenz added. He is on the record as supporting the repeal of MIPS.

Commission member Alice Coombs, MD, of Weymouth, Mass., was the lone voice speaking in support of MIPS: “I think MIPS has a lot of problems … but there are some things that are coming out of MIPS that are actually good.”

She called the VVP proposal “inadequate” and took issue with the measures. As a practicing physician, she said that she favors more population health measures that will affect patient outcomes.

MedPAC staff expect to have a draft recommendation prepared for discussion at the December meeting, with a final vote on what will be presented to Congress coming as soon as January.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission continues to mull the specifics of its proposed recommendation to scrap the Quality Payment Program’s MIPS component.

The basics of the MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System) replacement have not changed. The proposal calls for creation of a voluntary value program (VVP) that would withhold a percentage – currently 2% – of Medicare payments for physicians who are not part of an advanced alternative payment model (APM) under the Quality Payment Program of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

There would be two ways to recapture the withheld pay. The first would be to join an APM. The second would be to participate in a VVP by entering a voluntary reporting group. Under the proposal, VVPs would be at least 10 providers who would report together on population-based measures, patient experience, and cost measures, according to staff presentations given Nov. 2 at a meeting of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Proposed measures would be patient oriented, would encourage coordination across all providers, would promote positive change in the delivery system, and would be less burdensome to providers. Measures would be more in line with those employed by APMs – important because the overall goal would be encouraging participation in an APM rather than permanently lingering in the VVP.

To that end, MedPAC staff member Kate Bloniarz noted during the presentation of the VVP proposal that the total payments in the program “should be capped to be less attractive than joining an [advanced] APM. This comes from a general sense among commissioners that clinicians should not be able to receive large bonuses” for remaining in Medicare fee-for-service.

MedPAC staff recommended that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services offer a fallback group that would provide an option to providers that would otherwise not have access to other groups to join.

Commission member Kathy Buto, former vice president of global health policy at Johnson & Johnson, suggested withholding be increased to perhaps 3%, with providers able to recoup 2% in the VVP and 3% in an APM, to further incentivize APM participation.

Staff noted that certain quality measures and process measures would be lost if MIPS were to go away, but they could be accounted for in other channels, such as through electronic health records and registries.

Most commissioners expressed support for both the repeal of MIPS and the conceptual framework for the new VVP, although many sought more details, particularly in the handling of specialists.

“I don’t know that we want to try to make the VVP do too much, especially when you get into the specialties that are very, very episodic,” said commission member Brian DeBusk, PhD, CEO of DeRoyal Industries. “The classic example would be a joint replacement. … I hope to see some specialist APMs developed in parallel and I think that is going to take some pressure off to try to make the VVP be all things to all people.”

Commission member Pat Wang, CEO of Healthfirst, offered a possible solution.

“I would suggest that we try to think about doing that in the context of something that is a little bit, perhaps, not full bore APM, but a VVP for specialists with their own metrics that are not big, gigantic readmissions,” she said. “Those are very broad population health metrics [that may not work for specialists].”

But at least two commission members voiced their dissent to the proposal as presented, with one going so far as to saying that MIPS should not be repealed.

David Nerenz, PhD, of the Henry Ford Health System, said that he had “very serious concerns about the VVP part of this proposal [and] they are such that if it comes to us as a recommendation in more or less its current form I will not support it.”

He called it “pretty significant social engineering in the structure of medical practice and I think we are doing it in the absence of what to me would be compelling evidence that this large group structure we are talking about is good.

“I also don’t see any evidence that beneficiaries find value in the set of measures we are talking about,” Dr. Nerenz added. He is on the record as supporting the repeal of MIPS.

Commission member Alice Coombs, MD, of Weymouth, Mass., was the lone voice speaking in support of MIPS: “I think MIPS has a lot of problems … but there are some things that are coming out of MIPS that are actually good.”

She called the VVP proposal “inadequate” and took issue with the measures. As a practicing physician, she said that she favors more population health measures that will affect patient outcomes.

MedPAC staff expect to have a draft recommendation prepared for discussion at the December meeting, with a final vote on what will be presented to Congress coming as soon as January.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved frontline alectinib for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has been detected by an FDA-approved test.

The drug previously received accelerated approval for treatment of patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC whose disease progressed while receiving crizotinib or who were intolerant of that treatment.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved frontline alectinib for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has been detected by an FDA-approved test.

The drug previously received accelerated approval for treatment of patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC whose disease progressed while receiving crizotinib or who were intolerant of that treatment.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved frontline alectinib for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has been detected by an FDA-approved test.

The drug previously received accelerated approval for treatment of patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC whose disease progressed while receiving crizotinib or who were intolerant of that treatment.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

[email protected]

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – Patients with hyperparathyroidism and single-gland disease can be considered cured if their intraoperative parathyroid hormone (PTH) level drops by 50% or more, or to normal or near-normal levels (15-65 pg/mL), and don’t require immediate follow-up for lab work, according to a retrospective review of patients who underwent parathyroidectomy at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

These findings applied only to patients in the study whose preoperative sestamibi scans were concordant with intraoperative findings. Single-gland disease represented about 85% of cases, Melanie L. Lyden, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – Patients with hyperparathyroidism and single-gland disease can be considered cured if their intraoperative parathyroid hormone (PTH) level drops by 50% or more, or to normal or near-normal levels (15-65 pg/mL), and don’t require immediate follow-up for lab work, according to a retrospective review of patients who underwent parathyroidectomy at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

These findings applied only to patients in the study whose preoperative sestamibi scans were concordant with intraoperative findings. Single-gland disease represented about 85% of cases, Melanie L. Lyden, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – Patients with hyperparathyroidism and single-gland disease can be considered cured if their intraoperative parathyroid hormone (PTH) level drops by 50% or more, or to normal or near-normal levels (15-65 pg/mL), and don’t require immediate follow-up for lab work, according to a retrospective review of patients who underwent parathyroidectomy at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

These findings applied only to patients in the study whose preoperative sestamibi scans were concordant with intraoperative findings. Single-gland disease represented about 85% of cases, Melanie L. Lyden, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.