Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:02:02.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching the RAPID approach at the start of emergency medicine clerkship: an evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2015

Robert A. Woods ,
Krista Trinder ,
Marcel D’Eon  and
Sean McAleer
Robert A. Woods*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK
Krista Trinder
Affiliation:
Educational Support and Development Unit, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK
Marcel D’Eon
Affiliation:
Educational Support and Development Unit, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK
Sean McAleer
Affiliation:
Centre for Medical Education, Dundee, Scotland
*
Room 2689, 107 Hospital Drive, Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0W8; [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

The RAPID approach (Resuscitation, Analgesia and assessment, Patient needs, Interventions, Disposition) was developed as an approach to managing emergency department patients. It is a mental checklist to help trainees provide comprehensive care, addressing issues in priority. Its impact on trainee performance has not been assessed.

Methods:

Forty-two clerkship students were enrolled, with 21 students in each group. They received or did not receive the teaching intervention on an alternate basis. Students were assessed through daily encounter cards, a case presentation, a self-assessment form, a prerotation case (case E), and a sixcase short-answer exit examination (cases A to F) with case E repeated. Case E was designed specifically to assess students’ ability to provide comprehensive care. Fourteen students participated in focus groups.

Results:

Students in the intervention group had significantly higher exit examination case E scores (11.67 of 14 v. 10.26 of 14, p 5 0.008) and improvement in their case E scores from pre- to postrotation (1.82 v. 0.26, p 5 0.006). There were no significant differences in the other outcome measures. Intervention group students made positive comments around analgesia, addressing nonmedical needs and counseling on health promotion during focus groups.

Conclusions:

Students exposed to the RAPID approach at the start of their emergency medicine rotation performed better on the one component of the written examination for which it was designed to improve performance. Students found it to be a useful mental checklist for comprehensive care, possibly addressing the hidden curriculum. Emergency medicine educators should consider further study and careful implementation of the RAPID approach.

Keywords

approachclerkshipemergency medicinehealth promotionhidden curriculummnemonicoligoanalgesia
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 273 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2014

References

REFERENCES

1. Yonke, AM, Foley, RP. Overview of recent literature on undergraduate ambulatory education and a framework for future planning. Acad Med 1991;66:750–5, doi:10.1097/00001888-199112000-00010.Google Scholar
2. Wolpaw, TM, Wolpaw, DR, Papp, KK. SNAPPS: a learnercentered model for outpatient education. Acad Med 2003;78: 893–8, doi:10.1097/00001888-200309000-00010.Google Scholar
3. Wolpaw, T, Papp, KK, Bordage, G. Using SNAPPS to facilitate the expression of clinical reasoning and uncertainties: a randomized comparison group trial. Acad Med 2009;84:517–24, doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819a8cbf.Google Scholar
4. Penciner, R. Clinical teaching in a busy emergency department: strategies for success. CJEM 2002;4:286–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Bandiera, G, Lee, S, Foote, J. Faculty perceptions and practice impact of a faculty development workshop on emergency medicine teaching. CJEM 2005;7:321–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Coates, WC. An educator’s guide to teaching emergency medicine to medical students. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:300–6, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2004.tb02215.x.Google Scholar
7. Wilson, JE, Pendleton, JM. Oligoanalgesia in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med 1989;7:620–3, doi:10.1016/0735-6757(89)90286-6.Google Scholar
8. Hostutler, JJ, Taft, SH, Snyder, C. Patient needs in the emergency department: nurses’ and patients’ perceptions. J Nurs Admin 1999;29:43–50, doi:10.1097/00005110-199901000-00007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Hohl, CM, Abu-Laban, RB, Brubacher, JR, et al. Adherence to emergency department prescriptions. CJEM 2009;11:131–8.Google Scholar
10. Friedman, SM, de Dios, JV, Hanneman, K. Non-completion of referrals to outpatient specialty clinics among patients discharged from the emergency department: a prospective cohort study. CJEM 2010;12:325–30.Google Scholar
11. Engel, KG, Heisler, M, Smith, DM, et al. Patient comprehension of emergency department care and instructions: are patients aware of when they do not understand? Ann Emerg Med 2009;53:454–61, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.05.016.Google Scholar
12. Davenport, CD, Honigman, BA, Druck, JD. The 3-minute clinical presentation. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:683–7, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00145.x.Google Scholar
13. Woods, R, Di Gregorio, C, Wahba, M, et al. “RAPID” mnemonic for managing patients in the emergency department–an educational tool. CanMEDS Best Practice Abstract. Available at: (accessed November 15, 2012).Google Scholar
14. Morse, J, Field, PA. Qualitative research methods for health professionals. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1995.Google Scholar
15. Bandiera, G, Lendrum, D. Daily encounter cards facilitate competency-based feedback while leniency bias persists. CJEM 2007;10:44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Bass, BM. Reducing leniency bias in merit rankings. Personnel Psychology 2009;9:359–69, doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1956.tb01074.x.Google Scholar
17. Hojat, M, Mangione, S, Nasca, TJ, et al. An empirical study of decline in empathy in medical school. Med Educ 2004;38: 934–41, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01911.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Hojat, M, Vergare, MJ, Maxwell, K, et al. The devil is in the third year: a longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Acad Med 2009;84:1182–91, doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b17e55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Efird, J. Blocked randomization with randomly selected block sizes. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011;8:15–20, doi:10.3390/ijerph8010015.Google Scholar
20. Guyatt, G, Sackett, DL, Cook, DJ. Users’ guide to the medical literature: II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention: are the results of the study valid. JAMA 1993;270:2598–601, doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03510210084032.Google Scholar
21. Krueger, RA, Casey, MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2000.Google Scholar