Medline ® Abstracts for References 2-5

PURPOSE: Cardiac auscultation is suffering from a declining interest caused by competing diagnostic technology and, possibly, inadequate teaching and testing of physicians-in-training. Because access to technology, traditional teaching practices, and methods of trainees' assessment vary among different countries, we speculated that trainees' proficiency in auscultation might also vary.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We tested the cardiac auscultatory skills of 314 internal medicine residents (189 from the United States, 89 from Canada, and 36 from England) from 14 programs. All participants were asked to listen by stethophones to 12 prerecorded cardiac events and to answer a multiple-choice questionnaire. They also completed a survey concerning attitudes toward cardiac auscultation and auscultatory teaching received during training.

RESULTS: Mean (+/- SD) identification scores for the 12 cardiac events ranged from 0% to 58% for American trainees (mean 22% +/- 12%), 0% to 58% for Canadians (mean 26% +/- 13%), and 0% to 42% for British trainees (mean 20% +/- 12%). Canadians' cumulative scores were slightly but significantly greater than those of American (P = 0.02) and British house officers (P = 0.05). British house officers improved the most during the 3 years of training (P<0.05). Canadian and British trainees had received more auscultatory teaching during medical school and residency; they had also used audiotapes more frequently (all P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Auscultatory proficiency was poor in all three countries. Although there were slight differences among countries, the most striking finding was the consistent inaccuracy of all trainees. This suggests that variables other than teaching and testing affect proficiency.

CONTEXT: Medical educators have had a growing sense that proficiency in physical diagnostic skills is waning, but few data have examined the question critically.

OBJECTIVE, DESIGN, AND SETTING: To compare the cardiac auscultatory proficiency of medical students and physicians in training. A multicenter cross-sectional assessment of students and house staff. A total of 8 internal medicine and 23 family practice programs of the mid-Atlantic area.

PARTICIPANTS: A total of 453 physicians in training and 88 medical students.

INTERVENTIONS: All participants listened to 12 cardiac events directly recorded from patients, which they identified by completing a multiple-choice questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: scores were expressed as the percentage of participants, for year and type of training, who correctly identified each event. Cumulative scores were expressed as the totalnumber of events correctly recognized. An adjusted score was calculated whenever participants selected not only the correct finding but also findings that are acoustically similar and yet absent.

RESULTS: Trainees' cumulative scores ranged between 0 and 7 for both internal medicine and family practice residents (median, 2.5 and 2.0, respectively). Internal medicine residents had the highest cumulative adjusted scores for the 6 extra sounds and for all 12 cardiac events tested (P=.01 and .02, respectively). On average, internal medicine and family practice residents recognized 20% of all cardiac events; the number of correct identifications improved little with year of training and was not significantly higher than the number identified by medical students.

CONCLUSIONS: Both internal medicine and family practice trainees had a disturbingly low identification rate for 12 important and commonly encountered cardiac events. This study suggests a need to improve the teaching and assessment of cardiac auscultation during generalists' training, particularly with the advent of managed care and its search for more cost-effective uses of technology.