Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Royal College emergency medicine residents across Canada: a cross-sectional study.

After the Match

To determine whether changes in graduate medical education (GME) funding have had an impact on emergency medicine (EM) residency training programs. A 34-question survey was mailed to the program directors (PDs) of all 115 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited EM residency programs in the United States in the fall of 1998, requesting information concerning the impact of changes in GME funding on various aspects of the EM training. The results were then compared with a similar unpublished survey conducted in the fall of 1996. One hundred one completed surveys were returned (88% response rate). Seventy-one (70%) of the responding EM residency programs were PGY-I through PGY-III, compared with 55 (61%) of the responding programs in 1996. The number of PGY-II through PGY-IV programs decreased from 25 (28%) of responding programs in 1996 to 17 (16%). The number of PGY-I through PGY-IV programs increased slightly (13 vs 10); the number of EM residency positions remained relatively stable. Fifteen programs projected an increase in their number of training positions in the next two years, while only three predicted a decrease. Of the respondents, 56 programs reported reductions in non-EM residency positions and 35 programs reported elimination of fellowship positions at their institutions. Only four of these were EM fellowships. Forty-six respondents reported a reduction in the number of non-EM residents rotating through their EDs, and of these, 11 programs reported this had a moderate to significant effect on their ability to adequately staff the ED with resident physicians. Sixteen programs limited resident recruitment to only those eligible for the full three years of GME funding. Eighty-seven EM programs reported no change in faculty size due to funding issues. Sixty-two programs reported no change in the total number of hours of faculty coverage in the ED, while 34 programs reported an increase. Three EM programs reported recommendations being made to close their residency programs in the near future. Changes in GME funding have not caused a decrease in the number of existing EM residency and fellowship training positions, but may have had an impact in other areas, including: an increase in the number of EM programs structured in a PGY-I through PGY-III format (with a corresponding decrease in the number of PGY-II through PGY-IV programs); a decrease in the number of non-EM residents rotating through the ED; restriction of resident applicants who are ineligible for full GME funding from consideration by some EM training programs; and an increase in the total number of faculty clinical hours without an increase in faculty size.

TF3 Medic 5 Calling: Teaching On-Line Medical Direction via Simulation

Unprecedented Training: Experience of Residents During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Changes in Sex, Race, and Ethnic Origin of Emergency Medicine Resident Physicians From 2007 to 2017.

Gulf Coast Hurricane Sinks New Texas Emergency Medicine Residency

Asynchronous e-learning allows for targeted teaching, particularly advantageous when bedside and didactic education is insufficient. An asynchronous e-learning curriculum has not been studied across multiple centers in the context of a clinical rotation. We hypothesize that an asynchronous e-learning curriculum during the pediatric emergency medicine (EM) rotation improves medical knowledge among residents and students across multiple participating centers. Trainees on pediatric EM rotations at four large pediatric centers from 2012 to 2013 were randomized in a Solomon four-group design. The experimental arms received an asynchronous e-learning curriculum consisting of nine Web-based, interactive, peer-reviewed Flash/HTML5 modules. Postrotation testing and in-training examination (ITE) scores quantified improvements in knowledge. A 2 × 2 analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tested interaction and main effects, and Pearson's correlation tested associations between module usage, scores, and ITE scores. A total of 256 of 458 participants completed all study elements; 104 had access to asynchronous e-learning modules, and 152 were controls who used the current education standards. No pretest sensitization was found (p = 0.75). Use of asynchronous e-learning modules was associated with an improvement in posttest scores (p < 0.001), from a mean score of 18.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17.92 to 18.98) to 21.30 (95% CI = 20.69 to 21.91), a large effect (partial η(2) = 0.19). Posttest scores correlated with ITE scores (r(2) = 0.14, p < 0.001) among pediatric residents. Asynchronous e-learning is an effective educational tool to improve knowledge in a clinical rotation. Web-based asynchronous e-learning is a promising modality to standardize education among multiple institutions with common curricula, particularly in clinical rotations where scheduling difficulties, seasonality, and variable experiences limit in-hospital learning.

The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) was created in 1997 to provide residency program directors (PDs) with a summative evaluation that incorporates normative grading (i.e., comparisons to peers applying to emergency medicine [EM] training). Although the standard letter of recommendation (SLOR) has become increasingly popular and important in decision-making, it has not been studied in the past 12 years. To assess the SLOR's effectiveness and limitations, the perspective of EM PDs was surveyed in this study. After validation of the questionnaire by 10 retired PDs, the survey was sent to the PD of each of the 159 EM residencies that existed at that time. The survey was circulated via the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' (CORD) listserv from January 24, 2013, to February 13, 2013. Weekly e-mail reminders to all PDs served to increase participation. A total of 150 of 159 PDs (94.3%) completed the questionnaire. Nearly all respondents (149 of 150; 99.3%) agreed that the SLOR is an important evaluative tool and should continue to be used. In the application process, 91 of 150 (60.7%) programs require one or more SLORs, and an additional 55 (36.7%) recommend but do not require a SLOR to be considered for interview. When asked to identify the top three factors in deciding who should be interviewed, the SLOR was ranked first (139 of 150; 92.7%), with EM rotation grades ranked second (73 of 150; 48.7%). The factors that were most often identified as the top three that diminish the value of the SLOR in order were 1) "inflated evaluations" (121 of 146; 82.9%), 2) "inconsistency between comments and grades" (106 of 146; 72.6%), and 3) "inadequate perspective on candidate attributes in the written comments" and "inexperienced authors" (60 of 146; 41.1% each). The SLOR appears to be the most important tool in the EM PD's armamentarium for determining which candidates should be interviewed for residency training. Although valuable, the SLOR's potential utility is hampered by a number of factors, the most important of which is inflated evaluations. Focused changes in the SLOR template should be mindful that it appears, in general, to be successful in its intended purpose.

In reply

Introduction: Emergency medical services (EMS) are a critical component to Emergency Medicine (EM) residency training. In the United States, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has established minimum training requirements for EM residency programs. Since the last study exploring resident EMS involvement was performed, there have been over 100 new EM resident programs started. Given the rapid increase in new EM programs, we sought to determine EMS experiences provided to current EM residents. Materials and Methods: A 22-question anonymous online survey was distributed through E-mail to program directors of approved EM residencies in October 2020. A follow-up reminder was sent 3 weeks later. Results: In total, 51 of 257 programs responded (20% response rate). Forty-five percent of EM residents experience between 10 and 25 EMS calls during their residency, 31% experience 26–50, and 20% experience &gt;50 calls. The majority of programs (53%) have a separate EMS rotation where residents function as observers, 24% of residents function as providers, and 25% also have residents respond in a dedicated physician response vehicle. Aeromedical exposure is limited (47% have none and 43% average only 1–9 flights). Two-thirds of programs (67%) have residents provide online medical command during their ED shifts and 61% require residents to provide didactics to EMS clinicians. Despite ACGME requirements, only two-thirds of programs (69%) provide training about disaster/mass casualty incident (MCI) management and 67% have them participate in a disaster/MCI drill. About one-third of programs (31%) have decreased EMS experiences due to limited time in the residency curriculum, and 20% of programs have limited EMS experiences due to the COVID pandemic. Conclusions: The majority of responding EM residency programs meet ACGME EMS-related requirements. There is an opportunity for improvement around disaster education based on these data. Limited time in the curriculum and the COVID pandemic were cited as reasons that programs have limited their EMS experiences. The following core competencies are addressed in this article: Practice-Based Learning and Improvement, Medical Knowledge.

The emergency department (ED) is a high-stakes training environment for emergency medicine (EM) residents and residents' ability to reflect and self-evaluate patient care is of critical importance. Patient care dashboards have been shown to increase adherence to quality guidelines and improve patient outcomes. The objectives of this study were: (1) to create a comprehensive list of evidence-based, psychologically safe patient care and quality metrics to include in a patient care dashboard for EM residents; (2) to design an EM patient care residency dashboard in a secure, cloud-based environment integrated with the electronic health record (EHR); and (3) to pilot the usability and acceptability of the dashboard among EM residents. We created a list of potential EM resident patient care metrics using ACGME Emergency Medicine Defined Key Index Procedure Minimums, leading EM quality indicators, and current EM dashboard literature. We surveyed PGY-1 to -4 EM residents at a single residency program for their recommendations about inclusion, exclusion, and the psychological safety of each metric. We then developed a dashboard utilizing Power BI software integrated with Epic EHR. After development, we conducted a 2-month pilot evaluation for usability and acceptability among EM residents utilizing a mixed-methods approach. We identified 41 metrics within five domains (productivity metrics, patient safety and leading quality indicators, key procedures, complex/high-acuity cases, and uncertain diagnosis) to consider for inclusion in the dashboard. Residents (n = 32/68; 47% survey completion rate) recommended inclusion of 33 metrics; among these, three were identified as moderate-high psychological risk (ED length of stay, patients per hour, death within 24 h) whereas the rest were considered low psychological risk. Based on these survey results, we created an EM resident patient dashboard using Microsoft Power BI. Over a 2-month pilot period with 16 residents, user data showed a change between each resident's prior patient care review practices and review practices when using a dashboard; specifically, there were notable variations in frequency of use, time spent per review session, number of patients reviewed per session, and data categories reviewed. Eleven of 16 residents completed the technology usability and acceptability survey, with general acceptability and few concerns on usability. Our dashboard provides individualized patient care data to EM residents related to productivity, patient safety and quality, key procedures, complex/high-acuity cases, and uncertain diagnoses. A pilot group of EM residents found the dashboard acceptable and useable. Continued research is needed to explore ideal implementation and integration of patient care dashboards in residency training.

378: Impact and Perceived Value of Clinician Training on Health Information Exchange Adoption

The Next Accreditation System (NAS) of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) includes the implementation of developmental milestones for each specialty. The milestones include five progressively advancing skill levels, with Level 1 defining the skill level of a medical student graduate, and Level 5, that of an attending physician. The goal of this study was to query interns on how well they thought their medical school had prepared them to meet the proposed emergency medicine (EM) Level 1 milestones. In July 2012, an electronic survey was distributed to the interns of 13 EM residency programs, asking interns whether they were taught and assessed on the proposed Level 1 milestones. Of possible participants, 113 of 161 interns responded (70% response rate). The interns represented all four regions of the country. The interns responded that the rates of Level 1 milestones they had been taught ranged from 61% for ultrasound to 98% for performance of focused history and physical examination. A substantial number of interns (up to 39%) reported no instruction on milestones such as patient disposition, pain management, and vascular access. Graduating medical students were less commonly assessed than taught the milestones. Skills with technology, including "explain the role of the electronic health record and computerized physician order entry," were assessed for only 39% of interns, and knowledge (USMLE) and history and physical were assessed in nearly all interns. Disposition, ultrasound, multitasking, and wound management were assessed less than half of the time. Many entering EM interns may not have had either teaching or assessment on the knowledge, skills, and behaviors making up the Level 1 milestones expected for graduating medical students. Thus, there is a potential gap in the teaching and assessment of EM interns. Based on these findings, it is unclear who will be responsible (medical schools, EM clerkships, or residency programs) for ensuring that medical students entering residency have achieved Level 1 milestones.

Unscrambled: Every Emergency Medicine Spot Filled in Residency Match

Communication failures are a key cause of medical errors and are particularly prevalent during handovers of patients between services. To explore current perceptions of effectiveness in communicating critical patient information during admission handovers between emergency medicine (EM) residents and internal medicine (IM) residents. Study design was a survey of IM and EM residents at a large urban hospital. Residents were surveyed about whether critical information was communicated during patient handovers. Measurements included comparisons between IM and EM residents about their perceptions of effective communication of key patient information and the quality of handovers. Ninety-three percent of EM residents (50 of 54) and 80% of IM residents (74 of 93) responded to the survey. The EM residents judged their handover performance to be better than how their IM colleagues assessed them on most questions. The IM residents reported that one-half of the time, EM residents provided organized and clear information, whereas EM residents self-reported that they did so most of the time (80%-90%). The IM residents reported that 25% of handovers were suboptimal and resulted in admission to an inappropriate level of care, and 10% led to harm or delay in care. The EM residents reported suboptimal communication was less common (5%). On the global assessment of whether the admission handover provided the information needed for good patient care, IM residents rated the quality of the handover data lower than did responding EM residents. There are gaps in communicating critical patient information during admission handovers as perceived by EM and IM residents. This information can form the basis for efforts to improve these handovers.