INTRODUCTION: It is not currently known how accurately emergency medicine (EM) doctors interpret arterial blood gases (ABG). The present study explores this question. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional study of EM doctors was undertaken. An ABG interpretation test was completed by participants. Scores were compared with 'expert level' scores. Confidence with ABG interpretation and satisfaction with ABG training was investigated using a 10 cm visual analogue scale. RESULTS: A total of 37 consultants and 43 EM trainees were analysed. Consultant's and trainee's ABG interpretation scores were 31 (95% CI 29-32.8) and 29.4 (95% CI 27.6-31.2), respectively ('expert level'=40). Consultants scored better than trainees for knowledge of ABG equations; with mean scores of 3.65 (95% CI 3.08-4.22) and 2.51/6 (95% CI 1.87-3.15), respectively, P=0.01. Trainee satisfaction with ABG training was moderate. Consultants were more confident with ABG interpretation than trainees, but their confidence was not correlated to their score on the test (r=0.15, P=0.38). CONCLUSION: Neither group performed to the predefined 'expert level'. There was a trend to improved interpretation with progression through ACEM training. There is scope to improve the training given to EM trainees in ABG interpretation and to incorporate ABG interpretation into consultant continuing education.
INTRODUCTION: It is not currently known how accurately emergency medicine (EM) doctors interpret arterial blood gases (ABG). The present study explores this question. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional study of EM doctors was undertaken. An ABG interpretation test was completed by participants. Scores were compared with 'expert level' scores. Confidence with ABG interpretation and satisfaction with ABG training was investigated using a 10 cm visual analogue scale. RESULTS: A total of 37 consultants and 43 EM trainees were analysed. Consultant's and trainee's ABG interpretation scores were 31 (95% CI 29-32.8) and 29.4 (95% CI 27.6-31.2), respectively ('expert level'=40). Consultants scored better than trainees for knowledge of ABG equations; with mean scores of 3.65 (95% CI 3.08-4.22) and 2.51/6 (95% CI 1.87-3.15), respectively, P=0.01. Trainee satisfaction with ABG training was moderate. Consultants were more confident with ABG interpretation than trainees, but their confidence was not correlated to their score on the test (r=0.15, P=0.38). CONCLUSION: Neither group performed to the predefined 'expert level'. There was a trend to improved interpretation with progression through ACEM training. There is scope to improve the training given to EM trainees in ABG interpretation and to incorporate ABG interpretation into consultant continuing education.