scholarly journals Online research article discussion board to increase knowledge translation during emergency medicine residency

Author(s):  
Lisa Rae Stoneking ◽  
Alice Min ◽  
Kristi Grall ◽  
Ashish Panchal
2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 978-983 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. S. Dayan ◽  
M. Osmond ◽  
N. Kuppermann ◽  
E. Lang ◽  
T. Klassen ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1023-1029 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. H. Rowe ◽  
B. Diner ◽  
C. A. Camargo ◽  
A. Worster ◽  
A. Colacone ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 984-990 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. C. Brehaut ◽  
R. Hamm ◽  
S. Majumdar ◽  
F. Papa ◽  
A. Lott ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1030-1035
Author(s):  
C. B. Irvin ◽  
M. Afilalo ◽  
S. C. Sherman ◽  
S. J. Stack ◽  
S. Huckson ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 453-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Edwards ◽  
Damian Roland

BackgroundClinicians in the emergency care specialties often access information via social media (SM) to supplement their learning. The rapid and user-centred dissemination of information via SM speeds knowledge translation and means unnoticed errors may propagate quickly. East Midlands Emergency Medicine Educational Media is a UK web-based resource that produces emergency medicine-related learning materials. In October 2018, we inadvertently shared two sets of incorrect learning materials via SM because of a non-intentional mistake. We highlight how these errors were perpetuated and then corrected.MethodIn October 2018, two separate posts were published on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Reddit. One was an incorrect ECG where a paced rhythm was published instead of an ECG of hypocalcaemia; the other was incorrect information contained within an infographic. We reviewed the analytics of the posts, on each of the SM platforms.ResultsThe ECG mistake was picked up on Facebook 40 hours after posting by a follower. The infographic mistake was picked up on Reddit, within 3 hours. Despite these mistakes, and their correction, they continued to be shared on both Twitter and Facebook. The posts reached over 15 000 people.ConclusionHighlighting errors in educational content shared on SM is rarely reported in academic literature. We feel disclosure, and adding an update to the post is the best methodology to amend errors. We invite debate on a strategy to elucidate the number of errors in medical educational resources shared via SM and strategies on how to correct and improve them.


CJEM ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Barbic ◽  
Skye Barbic ◽  
Jerrald Dankoff

AbstractObjective: The objective of this study was to measure the current knowledge of Canadian emergency physicians and emergency medicine residents regarding computed tomography (CT) radiation dosing and its associated risks.Methods: Three focus groups were conducted as the qualitative element of this study. Cognitive debriefing was carried out to ensure the validity and reliability of the focus group findings and to aid with survey development. A 26-item electronic survey was developed and pilot tested for distribution to the membership of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians.Results: Eighteen emergency medicine physicians and three emergency medicine residents participated in the focus groups. Four major themes emerged: 1) physician knowledge of risks associated with CT, 2) risk management strategies, 3) communication, and 4) knowledge translation. The survey response rate was 49.8% (638 of 1,281). The mean respondent age was 40.9±9.9 years, and 70.7% were male. Of all respondents, 82.5% were actively practicing attending physicians, 56.4% of all respondents practiced in urban academic emergency departments, and the average time practicing was 10.7±9.6 years. Radiography and CT were correctly identified by 92.2% and 95.1% of respondents, respectively, as sources of ionizing radiation, whereas magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography were selected by 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively. With respect to the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of malignancy due to CT, 82.2% of participants correctly identified that abdominal CT increases the risk of cancer by 0.2 to 2%, whereas 51.3% correctly identified that the LAR increases twofold in a 7- year-old boy. When asked to identify populations at risk for potential harm due to ionizing radiation, 92.2% of respondents identified children, 80.3% identified pregnant women, and 71.4% identified women of reproductive age. A minority (37.2%) reported communicating the potential risks of CT to a majority of their patients. Electronic platforms were identified by 74.8% of respondents as their preferred method of knowledge translation on this topic.Conclusions: Canadian emergency medicine physicians and emergency medicine residents demonstrated identifiable gaps in knowledge surrounding CT radiation dose and risk.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document