Why the study?
How accurate are Accident & Emergency Senior House Officers at interpreting ECGs in patients with chest pain compared to a Consultant Cardiologist?
How accurate are Accident & Emergency Senior House Officers at interpreting ECGs in patients with chest pain compared to a Consultant Cardiologist?
A&E Senior House Officers frequently misinterpret abnormal ECGs, highlighting the need for formal ECG training and expert audit, though most patients are still managed correctly.
SHOs frequently misinterpret abnormal ECGs without compromising most management; leaves open whether targeted training improves accuracy in emergency settings.
Accident & Emergency Department Senior House Officers rely heavily on their ECG interpretation skills in the diagnosis and management of patients with chest pain. This prospective double-blind study was designed to test the accuracy with which Accident & Emergency Senior House Officers interpret ECGs, by comparing their interpretation with that of a Consultant Cardiologist. ECGs from 279 of 314 consecutive patients with chest pain were analysed. Ninety per cent of normal electrocardiographs and 57% of abnormal ECGs were correctly interpreted. Despite the inaccurate interpretation of 43% of abnormal ECGs, 96.5% of the patients in the study were considered to have been managed correctly. Audit of all ECGs recorded in the Accident & Emergency Department should be undertaken by someone with experience of ECG interpretation. New A&E staff should receive training in the interpretation of ECGs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McCallion et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: