National Survey of Wilderness Medicine Scholarly Tracks in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

IntroductionWilderness medicine (WM) tracks provide residents with a framework to foster their interests in wilderness medicine. However, there is little literature specific to WM tracks. We sent surveys to all 287 ACGME-recognized emergency medicine residencies in the United States to obtain data on the prevalence and characteristics of these tracks.MethodsA survey was distributed via the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and American College of Emergency Physicians listservs with follow-up emails sent to nonrespondents. The survey included questions regarding program demographics, the presence of a WM track, and the characteristics of the track. Residencies lacking a track were asked about their interest, and challenges faced, in creating a track. We evaluated differences between 3-y and 4-y residency programs, smaller and larger programs, and scholarly activity production using the χ2 test, where P < 0.05 was considered significant. We evaluated the differences between academic, community/county, and military centers using the ANOVA test, where P < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThe response rate was 28%; 24% of respondents had a WM track, and the majority of these were offered at academic centers, 4-year programs, or larger programs. Track participation, administration, and requirements varied significantly. Among programs without a WM track, a minority (35%) reported planning to develop one in the next few years.ConclusionsDespite the popularity of wilderness medicine, many residency programs do not have a WM scholarly track. Their engagement, administration, funding, scholarly productivity, and requirements are quite variable.