Assessment of Tracheostomy and Laryngectomy Knowledge among Non-Otolaryngology Physicians

T. Hsieh, Leah Timbang, M. Kuhn, H. Brodie, Lane Squires
{"title":"Assessment of Tracheostomy and Laryngectomy Knowledge among Non-Otolaryngology Physicians","authors":"T. Hsieh, Leah Timbang, M. Kuhn, H. Brodie, Lane Squires","doi":"10.1177/0003489419877198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Identify knowledge deficits about alternate airways (AAs) (tracheostomy and laryngectomy) among physicians across multiple specialties a tertiary institution and to assess the impact of an educational lecture on improving deficits. Methods: Study Design: Cross-sectional assessment. Setting: Academic medical center. Subjects and Methods: An anonymous 10-item, multiple choice assessment was given to physicians at a tertiary care center in the departments of Otolaryngology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, General Surgery, Internal Medicine, and Pediatrics. An educational lecture on AAs was presented. Scores between a pre-lecture and a 3-month post-lecture assessment were compared. Data was analyzed using ANOVA and chi-squared analysis. Results: Otolaryngology physicians scored an average of 97.8%, while non-otolaryngology physicians scored 58.3% (P < .05). Non-otolaryngology surgical physicians scored 68.4% while non-surgical physicians were lower at 55.1% (P < .0001). Comparing pre-lecture to post-lecture scores, all non-otolaryngology physicians improved their scores significantly from 58.3% to 86.5% (P < .005). Non-surgical physicians had significant improvement after the instructional lecture, closing the score gap with surgical physicians for the post-lecture assessment. Discussion: The care of patients with AAs requires an understanding of their basic principles. Our findings identify significant knowledge deficits among non-otolaryngologists. Through an instructional lecture, we demonstrated improvement in knowledge among non-otolaryngology physicians and durability of the knowledge after 3 months. Conclusions: Through an instructional lecture, we found tracheostomy and laryngectomy knowledge deficits can be identified and improved upon. Periodic reinforcement of basic principles for non-otolaryngology physicians may be a promising strategy to ensure the proper care of patients with AAs.","PeriodicalId":8361,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology","volume":"13 1","pages":"115 - 121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489419877198","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Objective: Identify knowledge deficits about alternate airways (AAs) (tracheostomy and laryngectomy) among physicians across multiple specialties a tertiary institution and to assess the impact of an educational lecture on improving deficits. Methods: Study Design: Cross-sectional assessment. Setting: Academic medical center. Subjects and Methods: An anonymous 10-item, multiple choice assessment was given to physicians at a tertiary care center in the departments of Otolaryngology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, General Surgery, Internal Medicine, and Pediatrics. An educational lecture on AAs was presented. Scores between a pre-lecture and a 3-month post-lecture assessment were compared. Data was analyzed using ANOVA and chi-squared analysis. Results: Otolaryngology physicians scored an average of 97.8%, while non-otolaryngology physicians scored 58.3% (P < .05). Non-otolaryngology surgical physicians scored 68.4% while non-surgical physicians were lower at 55.1% (P < .0001). Comparing pre-lecture to post-lecture scores, all non-otolaryngology physicians improved their scores significantly from 58.3% to 86.5% (P < .005). Non-surgical physicians had significant improvement after the instructional lecture, closing the score gap with surgical physicians for the post-lecture assessment. Discussion: The care of patients with AAs requires an understanding of their basic principles. Our findings identify significant knowledge deficits among non-otolaryngologists. Through an instructional lecture, we demonstrated improvement in knowledge among non-otolaryngology physicians and durability of the knowledge after 3 months. Conclusions: Through an instructional lecture, we found tracheostomy and laryngectomy knowledge deficits can be identified and improved upon. Periodic reinforcement of basic principles for non-otolaryngology physicians may be a promising strategy to ensure the proper care of patients with AAs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非耳鼻喉科医师对气管造口术和喉切除术知识的评估
目的:确定高等院校多专业医生在替代气道(气管造口术和喉切除术)方面的知识缺陷,并评估教育讲座对改善缺陷的影响。方法:研究设计:横断面评估。环境:学术医疗中心。研究对象和方法:对某三级保健中心耳鼻喉科、急诊医学科、家庭医学科、普外科医学科、内科医学科和儿科医学科的医生进行了一项10项选择题的匿名评估。举办了一场关于AAs的教育讲座。对课前和课后3个月的评估结果进行了比较。数据分析采用方差分析和卡方分析。结果:耳鼻喉科医师平均得分为97.8%,非耳鼻喉科医师平均得分为58.3% (P < 0.05)。非耳鼻喉外科医师得分为68.4%,非外科医师得分较低,为55.1% (P < 0.0001)。比较课前和课后的得分,所有非耳鼻喉科医生的得分从58.3%显著提高到86.5% (P < 0.005)。授课结束后,非手术医师的得分显著提高,与外科医师的课后评估得分差距缩小。讨论:对AAs患者的护理需要了解其基本原则。我们的研究结果确定了非耳鼻喉科医生的重大知识缺陷。通过一次教学讲座,我们证明了非耳鼻喉科医生在3个月后知识的提高和知识的持久性。结论:通过一个教学讲座,我们发现气管切开术和喉切除术的知识缺陷可以被识别和改善。定期加强非耳鼻喉科医生的基本原则可能是一个有希望的策略,以确保适当的护理患者的AAs。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pediatric Necrotizing Otitis Externa: A Scoping Review A Reproducible Peritonsillar Abscess Incision and Drainage Model for Junior Trainees Cost-Effectiveness of Diffusion Weighted MRI Versus Planned Second-Look Surgery for Cholesteatoma Assessing ChatGPT’s Responses to Otolaryngology Patient Questions Early and Late Complications of Mandibulectomy Free Flap Reconstruction: Does the Selective Use of Soft Tissue Only Flaps Reduce Complications?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1