A comparison of Australasian and United States emergency medicine training programmes

Abstract

AbstractTraining in emergency medicine differs from country to country. This article compares the emergency medicine training programmes of Australasia and the United States of America. The perceived advantages of programmes are highlighted, but no attempt is made to determine which is the better programme. The Australasian programme is significantly longer and places greater emphasis on the basic clinical sciences, physical examination skills and academic output. Australasian College for Emergency Medicine regulations are relatively flexible, and allow trainees to design their own programmes. Australasian trainees are encouraged to arrange accredited positions in a variety of hospitals. Overseas and part‐time training may be acceptable. In the US, trainees rotate within and from one parent institution which provides a rigid teaching structure for a ‘critical mass’ of trainees, based upon a core curriculum. Rotations tend to be much shorter than in the Australasian programme but ensure exposure to a broader range of clinical experience. In the US programme, evaluation of trainees and teaching faculty is more frequent and documentation of procedural and resuscitation skills is required. In addition, trainees are under the close supervision of the teaching faculty at all times when working in an emergency department.