Premium
Assessment of Emergency Medicine Residents' Computer Knowledge and Computer Skills: Time for an Upgrade?
Author(s) -
Jwayyed Sharhabeel,
Park Tammy K.,
Blanda Michelle,
Wilber Scott T.,
Gerson Lowell W.,
Meerbaum Sharon O.,
Beeson Michael S.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
academic emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.221
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1553-2712
pISSN - 1069-6563
DOI - 10.1197/aemj.9.2.138
Subject(s) - medicine , graduate medical education , accreditation , test (biology) , family medicine , medical education , paleontology , biology
Objective: To describe emergency medicine residents' (EMRs') personal computer (PC) use and educational needs and to compare their perceived and actual PC skills. Methods: This was a prospective, cross‐sectional study. Subjects were all EMRs at seven midwestern Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) residency programs. The EMRs completed a questionnaire about their PC use and ability to perform 23 tasks derived from two national retail‐training programs. The tasks covered word processing, slide making, and Internet use. The EMRs then took a three‐part test performing the skills in the questionnaire. Two independent raters scored the tests. Frequencies with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for categorical data. Positive and negative predictive values were used to report information comparing residents' performance with their self‐assessment of skills. Cohen's kappa was used to test agreement between raters. Results: One hundred twenty‐four of 158 (79%) eligible EMRs participated. Since not all participants engaged in all parts of the study, the sample size varies between 121 and 124. One hundred one of 122 (83%; 95% CI = 75 to 89) owned a PC. The EMRs use home PCs a mean of 3.8 hours/week for physician duties and use residency PCs 1.9 hours/week (range 0‐20). Ninety‐six of 122 (79%; 95% CI = 70 to 86) EMRs reported no formal PC training during residency. Thirty‐five percent (43/122; 95% CI = 27 to 44) passed the word‐processing test and 50% (62/123; 95% CI = 41 to 60) passed the slide‐making test. Reasons for failure were because of errors and not having a presentable product. Thirty‐eight of 122 (31%; 95% CI = 23 to 40) failed the literature search, including 33 who said they could perform it. One hundred fifteen of 123 (94%; 95% CI = 88 to 98) EMRs were able to find an Internet address, including ten who stated they could not. Twenty‐one percent of the residents who attempted any test (26/124; 95% CI = 14 to 29) passed all three tests. There was no association between year of training and success on the tests (p = 0.374). Thirty‐seven of 115 (32%; 95% CI = 24 to 42) EMRs said they had insufficient PC training to meet their physician needs. Conclusions: Emergency medicine residents have much access to computer technology and possess some computer skills; however, many are unable to produce a usable product or conduct a literature search. Emergency medicine residents have not had sufficient computer training prior to residency. The computer skills of EMRs should be assessed through skills testing rather than self‐assessment, and computer training during residency should be improved.