Richard M Pescatore1, Joshua D Niforatos2, Salim R Rezaie3, Anand Swaminathan4, Mizuho Morrison5, Meaghan Reid1, Sergey Motov6. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine Crozer-Keystone Health System Upland PA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine The Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore MD. 3. Greater San Antonio Emergency Physicians San Antonio TX. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine St. Joseph's Regional Medical Center Paterson NJ. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine Los Angeles County and USC Medical Center Los Angeles CA. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine Maimonides Medical Center Brooklyn NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The FOAM Impact study sought to examine baseline rates of intravenous (IV) lidocaine usage for the treatment of renal colic and to compare rates of use between FOAM utilizers and nonutilizers. We sought to measure the effect of FOAM resources on clinical practice by timing the release of FOAM content with publication of the LIDOKET trial. METHODS: A cross-sectional before-and-after survey was conducted and disseminated on two social media platforms. The 13-question, anonymous survey was posted for 1 week prior following the release of the LIDOKET study. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney t-test, and chi-square test statistics were used to describe survey respondent characteristics and Likert responses. RESULTS: There were a total of 472 survey respondents. A total of 321 physicians (75.7% of total respondents) provided pre- and postpublication survey answers. There was no significant change in the use of analgesics before and after publication of LIDOKET and concurrent REBEL EM blog post. A total of 197 (42%) survey respondents reported using lidocaine for renal colic, of which 60 respondents (13%) reported frequent or occasional use. The mean difference in perceived efficacy of lidocaine before and after publication was -0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.80 to 0.19, p = 0.15). Being a FOAM user was not associated with changes in mean difference in perception of lidocaine efficacy (F = 0.127, p = 0.72); however, there was a significant difference in perception of lidocaine's efficacy following LIDOKET and REBEL EM publication (F = 4.718, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Using an online survey-based technique, no appreciable impact of FOAM resources was immediately apparent; however, engagement with FOAM was associated with a change in perception of IV lidocaine's efficacy. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to evaluate the impact of FOAM on clinical practice. The unique method of coordinating FOAM distribution with traditional medical publication may provide future opportunities for measuring the impact of asynchronous medical education resources on medical practice.
OBJECTIVES: The FOAM Impact study sought to examine baseline rates of intravenous (IV) lidocaine usage for the treatment of renal colic and to compare rates of use between FOAM utilizers and nonutilizers. We sought to measure the effect of FOAM resources on clinical practice by timing the release of FOAM content with publication of the LIDOKET trial. METHODS: A cross-sectional before-and-after survey was conducted and disseminated on two social media platforms. The 13-question, anonymous survey was posted for 1 week prior following the release of the LIDOKET study. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney t-test, and chi-square test statistics were used to describe survey respondent characteristics and Likert responses. RESULTS: There were a total of 472 survey respondents. A total of 321 physicians (75.7% of total respondents) provided pre- and postpublication survey answers. There was no significant change in the use of analgesics before and after publication of LIDOKET and concurrent REBEL EM blog post. A total of 197 (42%) survey respondents reported using lidocaine for renal colic, of which 60 respondents (13%) reported frequent or occasional use. The mean difference in perceived efficacy of lidocaine before and after publication was -0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.80 to 0.19, p = 0.15). Being a FOAM user was not associated with changes in mean difference in perception of lidocaine efficacy (F = 0.127, p = 0.72); however, there was a significant difference in perception of lidocaine's efficacy following LIDOKET and REBEL EM publication (F = 4.718, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Using an online survey-based technique, no appreciable impact of FOAM resources was immediately apparent; however, engagement with FOAM was associated with a change in perception of IV lidocaine's efficacy. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to evaluate the impact of FOAM on clinical practice. The unique method of coordinating FOAM distribution with traditional medical publication may provide future opportunities for measuring the impact of asynchronous medical education resources on medical practice.
Authors: Brent Thoma; Stefanie S Sebok-Syer; Keeth Krishnan; Marshall Siemens; N Seth Trueger; Isabelle Colmers-Gray; Rob Woods; Emil Petrusa; Teresa Chan Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Sergey Motov; Catsim Fassassi; Jefferson Drapkin; Mahlaqa Butt; Rukhsana Hossain; Antonios Likourezos; Ralph Monfort; Jason Brady; Nechama Rothberger; Stefan S Mann; Peter Flom; Vishal Gulati; John Marshall Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Teresa M Chan; Brent Thoma; Keeth Krishnan; Michelle Lin; Christopher R Carpenter; Matt Astin; Kulamakan Kulasegaram Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2016-07-26
Authors: Osamu Nomura; Jin Irie; Yoonsoo Park; Hiroshi Nonogi; Hiroyuki Hanada Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 3.390