Physician variation in the use of computed tomography (CT) is concerning due to the risks of ionizing radiation, cost, and downstream effects of unnecessary testing. The objectives of this study were to describe variation in CT-ordering rates among emergency physicians (EPs), to measure correlation between perceived and actual CT-ordering rates, to assess attitudes that influence decisions to order imaging tests, and to identify EP attitudes associated with higher CT utilization.

This study was a retrospective review of imaging and administrative billing records at two emergency department sites of a tertiary care adult teaching hospital. The study also included a cross-sectional survey of EPs at this hospital. We asked physicians about their perceived ordering behaviour, and what factors influenced their decision to order a CT. We examined correlations between perceived and actual CT-ordering rates. We adjusted ordering rates for shift distribution using a logistic regression model and identified outlier physicians whose ordering rate was significantly lower or higher than expected. We used multivariable regression analysis to determine which survey responses predicted higher CT utilization.

During the study period, 59 EPs saw 45,854 patients, and ordered 6,609 CTs — a mean ordering rate of 14.4% (standard deviation (SD)=4.3%). The ordering rate for individual physicians ranged from 5.9% to 25.9%. Of the 59 EPs, 13 EPs were low-ordering outliers; 12 were high-ordering outliers. Forty-five EPs (76.3%) completed the survey. Mean perceived ordering rate was 12.6%, and was weakly correlated with actual ordering (r=0.19, p=0.21). 42 EPs (93.3%) believed they ordered “about the same” or “fewer” CTs than their peers. Of the 17 EPs in the two highest ordering quintiles, only 3 (18%) knew they were high orderers. In the multivariable analysis, higher ordering was associated with increasing strength of response to the following predictors: medico-legal risk (relative risk [RR]=1.18, 95% CI: 1.03–1.21), risk of contrast (RR=1.14, 95% CI: 1.07–1.22), what colleagues would do (RR=1.09, 95% CI: 0.99–1.19), risk of missing a diagnosis (RR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.98–1.21), and patient wishes (RR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.97–1.17).

There is large variation in CT ordering among EPs. Physicians’ self-reported ordering rate correlates poorly with actual ordering. High CT orderers were rarely aware that they ordered more than their colleagues. Higher rates of ordering were observed among physicians who reported increased concern with 1) risk of missing a diagnosis, 2) medico-legal risk, 3) risk of contrast, 4) patient wishes, and 5) what colleagues would do.

Education scholarship can be conducted using a variety of methods, from quantitative experiments to qualitative studies. Qualitative methods are less commonly used in emergency medicine (EM) education research but are well-suited to explore complex educational problems and generate hypotheses. We aimed to review the literature to provide resources to guide educators who wish to conduct qualitative research in EM education.

We conducted a scoping review to outline: 1) a list of journals that regularly publish qualitative educational papers; 2) an aggregate set of quality markers for qualitative educational research and scholarship; and 3) a list of quality checklists for qualitative educational research and scholarship.

We found nine journals that have published more than one qualitative educational research paper in EM. From the literature, we identified 39 quality markers that were grouped into 10 themes: Initial Grounding Work (preparation, background); Goals, Problem Statement, or Question; Methods (general considerations); Sampling Techniques; Data Collection Techniques; Data Interpretation and Theory Generation; Measures to Optimize Rigour and Trustworthiness; Relevance to the Field; Evidence of Reflective Practice; Dissemination and Reporting. Lastly, five quality checklists were found for guiding educators in reporting their qualitative work.

Many problems that EM educators face are well-suited to exploration using qualitative methods. The results of our scoping review provide publication venues, quality indicators, and checklists that may be useful to EM educators embarking on qualitative projects.

In 2015 and 2016, the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM) Social Media (SoMe) Team collaborated with established medical websites to promote CJEM articles using podcasts and infographics while tracking dissemination and readership.

CJEM publications in the “Original Research” and “State of the Art” sections were selected by the SoMe Team for podcast and infographic promotion based on their perceived interest to emergency physicians. A control group was composed retrospectively of articles from the 2015 and 2016 issues with the highest Altmetric score that received standard Facebook and Twitter promotions. Studies on SoMe topics were excluded. Dissemination was quantified by January 1, 2017 Altmetric scores. Readership was measured by abstract and full-text views over a 3-month period. The number needed to view (NNV) was calculated by dividing abstract views by full-text views.

Twenty-nine of 88 articles that met inclusion were included in the podcast (6), infographic (11), and control (12) groups. Descriptive statistics (mean, 95% confidence interval) were calculated for podcast (Altmetric: 61, 42-80; Abstract: 1795, 1135-2455; Full-text: 431, 0-1031), infographic (Altmetric: 31.5, 19-43; Abstract: 590, 361-819; Full-text: 65, 33-98), and control (Altmetric: 12, 8-15; Abstract: 257, 159-354; Full-Text: 73, 38-109) articles. The NNV was 4.2 for podcast, 9.0 for infographic, and 3.5 for control articles.

Limitations included selection bias, the influence of SoMe promotion on the Altmetric scores, and a lack of generalizability to other journals.

Collaboration with established SoMe websites using podcasts and infographics was associated with increased Altmetric scores and abstract views but not full-text article views.