Abstract 13990: ECG Interpretation Proficiency of Healthcare Professionals

• Published in: Circulation (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 148; no. Suppl_1
• Main Authors: Kashou, Anthony H, Noseworthy, Peter A, Beckman, Thomas, Anavekar, Nandan S, Cullen, Michael W, Angstman, Kurt B, Sandefur, Benjamin J, Shapiro, Brian P, Wiley, Brandon W, Kates, Andrew, Huneycutt, david, Braisted, Andrew, Smith, Stephen W, Baranchuk, Adrian, Grauer, Ken, O'Brien, Kevin, Kaul, Viren, Gambhir, Harvir S, Knohl, Stephen J, Albert, David E, KLIGFIELD, Paul, Macfarlane, Peter W, May, Adam
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 07-11-2023
• ISSN: 0009-7322; 1524-4539
• DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.13990

Abstract only
Background:
ECG interpretation is crucial in medical practice, but professionals struggle with achieving and maintaining competency. Identifying proficiency gaps aids in designing educational interventions.
Methods:
Medical professionals from various disciplines interpreted 30 12-lead ECGs containing commonly taught urgent and non-urgent findings. Performance metrics evaluated were overall adjusted score (% of correctly identified findings using a point-value score based on clinical relevance), unadjusted score (% of correctly identified findings), interpretation time per ECG, and self-reported confidence (rated on an ordinal scale of 0 [not confident], 1 [somewhat confident], or 2 [confident]).
Results:
Among 1206 participants, there were 72 (6%) primary care physicians (PCPs), 146 (12%) cardiology fellows-in-training (FIT), 353 (29%) resident physicians, 182 (15%) medical students, 84 (7%) advanced practice providers (APPs), 120 (10%) nurses, 249 (21%) allied health professionals, 571 (47%) physicians, and 453 (38%) non-physicians. Participants had a mean adjusted score of 46.9% (± 15.9%), unadjusted score of 56.4% (± 17.2%), interpretation time of 142 seconds (± 67 seconds), and confidence of 0.83 (± 0.53)
(Table 1)
. Performance varied across groups; cardiology FIT had superior performance in all metrics. Physicians generally outperformed non-physicians, with higher overall adjusted score (52% vs. 43%; p<0.01), unadjusted score (62% vs. 52%; p<0.01), and confidence (0.91 vs. 0.80; p<0.01). Unadjusted score for PCPs was higher than nurses and APPs (58% vs. 47% and 51%; p<0.01) but lower than resident physicians (58% vs. 60%; p<0.01). Allied health professionals outperformed nurses and APPs and closely matched resident physicians and PCPs.
Conclusions:
Significant gaps in ECG interpretation proficiency exist, emphasizing the need for comprehensive, scalable, and accessible educational tools.