| Literature DB >> 32426186 |
David Ediger1, Ryan Sumpter1, Rachel E Bridwell2, Christopher N Belcher2.
Abstract
The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Approved Instructional Resources (AIR) Series and Approved Instructional Resources - Professional (AIR-Pro) Series were created in 2014 and 2015, respectively, in response to the growing need to curate online educational content as well as create a nationally available curriculum that meets individualized interactive instruction criteria for emergency medicine (EM) trainees. These two online series identify high-quality educational blog and podcast content using an expert-based approach. The AIR series is a continuously building curriculum originally based on the Council of Emergency Medicine Directors (CORD) testing schedule. In September 2019, 61 blog posts and podcasts published within the previous 12 months and relevant to infectious diseases were evaluated by eight attending physicians using the ALiEM AIR scoring instrument. In this review, we summarize the accredited posts on infectious diseases meeting our a priori quality criteria per evaluation by the reviewers.Entities:
Keywords: cellulitis; emergency medicine; fournier gangrene; free open access medical education; infectious diseases; sepsis; toxic shock syndrome
Year: 2020 PMID: 32426186 PMCID: PMC7228787 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.7674
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Approved Instructional Resources scoring instrument for blogs and podcasts
BEEM: Best evidence in emergency medicine; EP: Emergency physician; EBM: Evidence-based medicine
| Tier 1: BEEM Rater Scale | Score | Tier 2: Content Accuracy | Score | Tier 3: Educational Utility | Score | Tier 4: Evidence-Based Medicine | Score | Tier 5: Referenced | Score |
| Assuming that the results of this article are valid, how much does this article impact on EM clinical practice? | Do you have any concerns about the accuracy of the data presented or the conclusions of this article? | Are there useful educational pearls in this article for senior residents? | Does this article reflect evidence-based medicine (EBM)? | Are the authors and literature clearly cited? | |||||
| Useless information | 1 | Yes, many concerns from many inaccuracies | 1 | Not required knowledge for a competent EP | 1 | Not EBM based, only expert opinion | 1 | No | 1 |
| Not really interesting, not really new, changes nothing | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Interesting and new, but doesn't change practice | 3 | Yes, a major concern about few inaccuracies | 3 | Yes, but there are only a few (1-2) educational pearls that will make the EP a better practitioner to know or multiple (>=3) educational pearls that are interesting or potentially useful, but rarely required or helpful for the daily practice of an EP. | 3 | Minimally EBM based | 3 | 3 | |
| Interesting and new, has the potential to change practice | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Yes, authors and general references are listed (but no in-line references) | 4 | |||
| New and important: this would probably change practice for some EPs | 5 | Minimal concerns over minor inaccuracies | 5 | Yes, there are several (>=3) educational pearls that will make the EP a better practitioner to know, or a few (1-2) every competent EP must know in their practice | 5 | Mostly EBM based | 5 | 5 | |
| New and important: this would change practice for most EPs | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||
| This is a "must-know" for EPs | 7 | No concerns over inaccuracies | 7 | Yes, there are multiple educational pearls that every competent EP must know in their practice | 7 | Yes, exclusively EBM based | 7 | Yes, authors and in-line references are provided | 7 |