Managing STEMIs without a Catheterization Lab: A Simulated Scenario to Improve Emergency Clinician Recognition and...

The targeted audience for this simulation is Emergency Medicine (EM) residents. Medical students, advanced practice providers, and staff physicians could all also find educational merit in this scenario.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States according to the CDC.1 Coronary artery disease caused 375,000 deaths 2021 alone, and about 5% of all adult patients have a prior history of coronary artery disease.2 Furthermore, chest pain itself is a common chief complaint encountered in the ED, with nearly 8 million visits annually occurring throughout the United States, with 10-20% of those patients ultimately being diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome3, including ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Given this, it is essential that EM residents are well prepared to care for all patients presenting with chest pain, regardless of the acute care or emergency setting.Throughout their training, most EM residents typically learn and evaluate patients at a large tertiary or quaternary medical center with 24-hour catheterization laboratory availability. For patients presenting with electrocardiogram (EKG) findings consistent with STEMI, the standard of care is for the patient to undergo cardiac catheterization and stent placement within 90 minutes of arrival. Unfortunately, only half of patients living in rural areas have a cardiac catheterization-capable facility available to them within a 60-minute driving radius, making it difficult for those patients to undergo cardiac catheterization within the desired time frame.4 These patients remain candidates for thrombolytic therapy, but given infrequent opportunities to learn about and deploy thrombolytic agents during residency training, graduating EM residents may be unfamiliar with indications, dosing, and contraindications before they begin practice. Furthermore, the recent EM workforce data suggests that although there may be an oversupply of 8,000 emergency physicians by 2030, robust practice opportunities for emergency physicians remain in rural settings.5 Although historically EM graduates have not selected rural areas for practice, with only approximately 8% of emergency physicians practicing in rural areas,6 it is likely that given the opportunities present and perceived saturation in many non-rural settings, more EM graduates will pursue practice in a rural setting. With these changing practice dynamics in mind, this simulation provides the opportunity for residents and medical students to experience the management of a STEMI in the rural setting, with a focus upon the indications, contraindications, dosing, and disposition of a patient receiving thrombolytics.

By the end of this simulation, learners will be able to:Diagnose ST elevation myocardial infarction accurately and initiate thrombolysis in the rural setting without timely access to cardiac catheterization.Engage the simulated patient in a shared decision-making conversation, clearly outlying the benefits and risks of thrombolysis.Identify the indications and contraindications for thrombolysis in ST elevation myocardial infarction.Arrange for transfer to a tertiary care center following completion of thrombolysis.

This scenario is a simulated encounter in a rural emergency department setting requiring the diagnosis of a STEMI, a discussion with the patient regarding the risks and benefits of thrombolysis prior to administration, administration of thrombolysis, and transfer of patient to a higher level of care.

The educational content of this simulation as a teaching instrument was evaluated by the learner utilizing an internally developed survey after case completion. This survey was reviewed for precision of language and assessment of learning objectives by our simulation faculty and other members of our West Virginia University Emergency Medicine Department of Medical Education. The learner was asked to specify any prior experience with rural STEMI management as well as quantify via a five-point Likert Scale, where 1 = very uncomfortable and 5 = very comfortable, their level of comfort with thrombolysis before and after the scenario as well as their comfort with having a shared decision-making conversation with patients with regards to thrombolysis. Learners were also asked to rank the helpfulness of this simulation in preparing them for administering thrombolytics for STEMI in a rural setting on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = not helpful and 5 =very helpful. An open response section was also provided to allow learners the opportunity to comment directly on any aspect of the simulation.

Data was collected anonymously from 16 PGY1-3 resident learners via surveys with a 100% response rate. Overall, the feedback received regarding the simulation was positive. There was a low average comfort level with administering thrombolytics and having a shared decision-making conversation regarding administering thrombolytics. There was a high average rating of the helpfulness of this simulation in preparing residents for this conversation as well as managing STEMIs in a rural setting. Subjective comments regarding the simulation were universally positive.

The management of STEMI in the rural emergency department differs significantly from the environment in which many EM residents train. As a leading cause of death in the United States, STEMI management is a vital component of EM resident education. Although the concept of thrombolysis in the rural setting is discussed, the opportunity for real-world experience in its execution is often limited despite many graduates ultimately working in rural emergency departments. This simulation sought to provide a realistic patient encounter to promote familiarity and comfort in the identification, patient discussion and execution of thrombolysis in the treatment of a STEMI. The educational content was shown to be effective via learner survey completion.