To develop and implement a peer-based performance evaluation tool and to measure reliability and physician satisfaction.

Each emergency physician in an urban emergency department evaluated their peers by completing a survey consisting of 21 questions on effectiveness in 4 categories: clinical practice, interaction with coworkers and the public, nonclinical departmental responsibilities, and academic activities. A sample of emergency nurses evaluated each emergency physician on a subset of 5 of the questions. Factor analysis was used to assess the reliability of the questions and categories. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to determine inter-rater reliability. After receiving their peer evaluations, each physician rated the process’s usefulness to the individual and the department.

225 surveys were completed on 16 physicians. Factor analysis did not distinguish the nonclinical and academic categories as distinct; therefore, the survey questions fell into 3 domains, rather than the 4 hypothesized. The overall intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.43 for emergency physicians, indicating moderate, but far from perfect, agreement. This suggests that variability exists between physician evaluators, and that multiple reviewers are probably required to provide a balanced physician evaluation. The intra-class correlation coefficient for emergency nurses was 0.11, suggesting poor reliability. Overall, 11 of 15 physicians reported the process valuable or mostly valuable, 3 of 15 were unsure and 1 of 15 reported that the process was definitely not valuable.

Physician evaluation by a single individual is probably unreliable. A useful physician peer evaluation tool can be developed. Most physicians view a personalized, broad-based, confidential peer review as valuable.

Our primary objectives were to estimate how frequently emergency medical technicians with defibrillation skills (EMT-Ds) are forced to deal with prehospital do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, to assess their comfort in doing so, and to describe the prehospital care provided to patients with DNR orders in a system without a prehospital DNR policy (i.e., where resuscitation is mandatory).

Using Dillman methodology, the authors developed a 13-item survey and mailed it to 382 of 764 EMT-Ds in the metropolitan Toronto area. Responses were evaluated using 5-point Likert scales, limited-option and open-ended questions. Narrative responses were categorized. Two authors independently categorized narrative responses from 20 surveys, and kappa values for agreement beyond chance were determined.

Among 382 EMT-Ds surveyed, 236 (62%) responded, of whom 221 (94%) answered the questionnaire. Overall, 126 of 219 (58%) indicated that they were called to resuscitate patients with DNR orders “sometimes,” “frequently,” or “all the time.” In such situations, 22 of 207 (11%) stated they would honour the DNR order and 55 of 207 (27%) would honour the order but appear to provide basic resuscitation, in order to adhere to mandatory resuscitation regulations. Willingness to honour a DNR order did not vary by years of emergency medical service. EMT-Ds cited concern for the family and the patient, fear of repercussions and conflict with personal ethics as key factors contributing to this ethical dilemma. If legally allowed to honour DNR orders, 212 of 221 (96%) respondents would be comfortable with a written order and 137 of 220 (62%) with a verbal order.

Prehospital DNR orders are common, and a significant number of EMT-Ds disregard current regulations by honouring them. EMT-Ds would be more comfortable with written than verbal DNR orders. An ethical prehospital DNR policy should be developed and applied.

Our goal was to determine the effectiveness of an intervention aimed at improving the emergency department (ED) documentation of pediatric injuries.

All physicians and nursing staff in the ED of an urban teaching hospital and trauma centre underwent focused injury surveillance training and were instructed how to document 14 injuryspecific data elements. Pocket reminder cards were provided, and pediatric injury charts were flagged. Subsequently, random samples of pediatric injury charts were analyzed from a 3-month period prior to the intervention and from the corresponding months after the intervention. Postintervention documentation was compared to pre-intervention documentation for the 14 predefined data elements.

Six of the 14 data elements were charted more frequently, and 2 less frequently during the post-intervention phase. Odds ratios ranged from 4.59 (95%CI, 3.40 to 6.19) for charting “the presence of an adult observer” to 0.09 (95%CI, 0.01 to 0.76) for charting “sports equipment related to the injury.” The “flagging” of injury charts, as a visual reminder for clinicians to document injury data, seemed to be the most effective component of the intervention.

A simple intervention, consisting of staff training, chart modification, and visual flagging of charts, can increase the amount of injury information documented by ED clinicians. Efforts to improve ED charting are most likely to succeed if they include visual prompts for clinicians.