Academic Emergency Medicine Research Articles

Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors

Publishing in academic journals is challenging for learners. Those who pass the initial stages of internal review by an editor often find the anonymous peer review process harsh. Academic blogs offer alternate avenues for publishing medical education material. Many blogs, however, lack a peer review process, which some consumers argue compromises the quality of materials published. CanadiEM (formerly BoringEM) is an academic educational emergency medicine blog dedicated to publishing high-quality materials produced by learners (i.e., residents and medical students). The editorial team has designed and implemented a collaborative "coached peer review" process that comprises an open exchange among the learner-author, editors, and reviewers. The goal of this process is to facilitate the publication of high-quality academic materials by learner-authors while providing focused feedback to help them develop academic writing skills. The authors of this Innovation Report surveyed (February-June 2015) their blog's learner-authors and external expert "staff" reviewers who had participated in coached peer review for their reactions to the process. The survey results revealed that participants viewed the process positively compared with both traditional journal peer review and academic blog publication processes. Participants found the process friendly, easy, efficient, and transparent. Learner-authors also reported increased confidence in their published material. These outcomes met the goals of coached peer review. CanadiEM aims to inspire continued participation in, exposure to, and high-quality production of academic writing by promoting the adoption of coached peer review for online educational resources produced by learners.

Evolution of the Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine: 1979 to Present.

The Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine (the EM Model) is a three-dimensional representation of the clinical practice of emergency medicine. It is a product of successful collaboration involving the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM), the Emergency Medicine Residents' Association (EMRA), the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD), the Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine (RRC-EM), and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM). In 2017, the most recent update and revision of the EM Model will be published. This document will represent the culmination of nearly 40 years of evolution, from a simple listing of presenting patient complaints, clinical symptoms, and disease states into a three-dimensional representation of the clinical practice of emergency medicine. These dimensions include conditions and components, physician tasks, and patient acuity. In addition, over the years, two other documents have been developed, the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) and the Emergency Medicine Milestones. Both serve as related and complementary educational and assessment tools. This article will review the development of the EM Model from its inception in 1979 to today.

Perceptions of Unprofessional Social Media Behavior Among Emergency Medicine Physicians.

Use of social media (SM) by physicians has exposed issues of privacy and professionalism. While guidelines have been created for SM use, details regarding specific SM behaviors that could lead to disciplinary action presently do not exist. To compare State Medical Board (SMB) directors' perceptions of investigation for specific SM behaviors with those of emergency medicine (EM) physicians. A multicenter anonymous survey was administered to physicians at 3 academic EM residency programs. Surveys consisted of case vignettes, asking, "If the SMB were informed of the content, how likely would they be to initiate an investigation, possibly leading to disciplinary action?" (1, very unlikely, to 4, very likely). Results were compared to published probabilities using exact binomial testing. Of 205 eligible physicians, 119 (58%) completed the survey. Compared to SMB directors, EM physicians indicated similar probabilities of investigation for themes involving identifying patient images, inappropriate communication, and discriminatory speech. Participants indicated lower probabilities of investigation for themes including derogatory speech (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 24-41 versus 46%, P < .05); alcohol intoxication (41%, 95% CI 32-51 versus 73%, P < .05); and holding alcohol without intoxication (7%, 95% CI 3-13 versus 40%, P < .05). There were no significant associations with position, hospital site, years since medical school, or prior SM professionalism training. Physicians reported a lower likelihood of investigation for themes that intersect with social identity, compared to SMB directors, particularly for images of alcohol and derogatory speech.

Exclusion of Non-English Speakers in Published Emergency Medicine Research - A Comparison of 2004 and 2014.

Background:Non-English speakers (NES) as a proportion of the United States population have steadily increased in recent years. There remains substantial risk of excluding NES from research.Objective:To assess whether the percentage of emergency medicine (EM) studies that exclude Non-English speakers from participation has changed with time.Methods:In a structured fashion, the lead investigator analyzed all original research articles in Academic Emergency Medicine and Annals of Emergency Medicine retrospectively for 2004 and prospectively for 2014. An independent investigator conducted a blind review of a sample of articles to assess for interobserver agreement. Demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Chi-square, t-tests, and linear regression models were utilized; alpha set at 0.05. Cohen’s kappa calculated to assess interrater reliability.Results:We included a total of 236 original research articles. Overall, 11% excluded NES from research (10% AEM, 12% Annals). Cohen’s kappa (nonweighted) was 0.73. Comparing all articles in 2004 vs. 2014, research excluded NES 6% vs. 16% of the time respectively (P=0.02). This was not statistically significant when comparing year to year for AEM (7.3% vs. 14.5%; P=0.12) and Annals (6.7% vs. 19%; P=0.06) separately. Factors affecting NES exclusion included type of study design (P<0.001), geographic area (P=0.009) and hospital type (P=0.035). Interestingly, 42% of articles failed to mention language as an exclusion or inclusion criteria.Conclusion:We found that the percentage of articles excluding NES from EM research increased between 2004 and 20014. Further, many investigators do not report whether NES are excluded/included in their studies.

An Analysis of the Top-cited Articles in Emergency Medicine Education Literature.

IntroductionDissemination of educational research is critical to improving medical education, promotion of faculty and ultimately patient care. The objective of this study was to identify the top 25 cited education articles in the emergency medicine (EM) literature and the top 25 cited EM education articles in all journals, as well as report on the characteristics of the articles.MethodsTwo searches were conducted in the Web of Science in June 2016 using a list of education-related search terms. We searched 19 EM journals for education articles as well as all other literature for EM education-related articles. Articles identified were reviewed for citation count, article type, journal, authors, and publication year.ResultsWith regards to EM journals, the greatest number of articles were classified as articles/reviews, followed by research articles on topics such as deliberate practice (cited 266 times) and cognitive errors (cited 201 times). In contrast in the non-EM journals, research articles were predominant. Both searches found several simulation and ultrasound articles to be included. The most common EM journal was Academic Emergency Medicine (n = 18), and Academic Medicine was the most common non-EM journal (n=5). A reasonable number of articles included external funding sources (6 EM articles and 13 non-EM articles.)ConclusionThis study identified the most frequently cited medical education articles in the field of EM education, published in EM journals as well as all other journals indexed in Web of Science. The results identify impactful articles to medical education, providing a resource to educators while identifying trends that may be used to guide EM educational research and publishing efforts.

How to Approach Real Mathematical Modeling in Surge Capacity: Clinical Review

Objectives: Science of surge is one of most important topics in the realm of disaster preparedness. Since 2006, after Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) Consensus Conference, few articles with quantitative data address decision making in surge capacity. The aim of this article is looking forward to the facts about mathematical modeling and proposes real modeling in decision making to have better outcome. Methods: Literature Research was performed on database for the last ten years (2007-2017). Articles with mathematical modeling were separated and classified based on the usage of them in the field. Results: All current mathematical studies compared based on pre-hospital and hospital setting and flexibility in change of global level of care in time. Integrated model of sigmoid curve and HASC (Hospital Acute Care Surge Capacity) with name B-H integrated modeling in two-hour interval proposed. Conclusion: This study shows dynamic process of disaster planning based on outcome and reality. The proposed model makes surge capacity more predictable and adjustable.

Characteristics of Real-Time, Non-Critical Incident Debriefing Practices in the Emergency Department.

IntroductionBenefits of post-simulation debriefings as an educational and feedback tool have been widely accepted for nearly a decade. Real-time, non-critical incident debriefing is similar to post-simulation debriefing; however, data on its practice in academic emergency departments (ED), is limited. Although tools such as TeamSTEPPS® (Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety) suggest debriefing after complicated medical situations, they do not teach debriefing skills suited to this purpose. Anecdotal evidence suggests that real-time debriefings (or non-critical incident debriefings) do in fact occur in academic EDs;, however, limited research has been performed on this subject. The objective of this study was to characterize real-time, non-critical incident debriefing practices in emergency medicine (EM).MethodsWe conducted this multicenter cross-sectional study of EM attendings and residents at four large, high-volume, academic EM residency programs in New York City. Questionnaire design was based on a Delphi panel and pilot testing with expert panel. We sought a convenience sample from a potential pool of approximately 300 physicians across the four sites with the goal of obtaining >100 responses. The survey was sent electronically to the four residency list-serves with a total of six monthly completion reminder emails. We collected all data electronically and anonymously using SurveyMonkey.com; the data were then entered into and analyzed with Microsoft Excel.ResultsThe data elucidate various characteristics of current real-time debriefing trends in EM, including its definition, perceived benefits and barriers, as well as the variety of formats of debriefings currently being conducted.ConclusionThis survey regarding the practice of real-time, non-critical incident debriefings in four major academic EM programs within New York City sheds light on three major, pertinent points: 1) real-time, non-critical incident debriefing definitely occurs in academic emergency practice; 2) in general, real-time debriefing is perceived to be of some value with respect to education, systems and performance improvement; 3) although it is practiced by clinicians, most report no formal training in actual debriefing techniques. Further study is needed to clarify actual benefits of real-time/non-critical incident debriefing as well as details on potential pitfalls of this practice and recommendations for best practices for use.

Assessing Primary Care Trainee Comfort in the Diagnosis and Management of Thermal Injuries

Thermal injuries are common and the majority will initially present to primary care physicians. Despite being a part of the objectives of training in family medicine (FM) and emergency medicine (EM), previous study has shown that in practice, gaps exist in the delivery of care. An electronic survey was sent to all FM/EM trainees at our university for the 2014 to 2015 academic year. Plastic Surgery trainees were included as a control group. Demographics and educational/clinical experience were assessed. Trainee comfort was measured on a five-point Likert scale across 15 domains related to thermal injuries. Preferences for educational interventions were also ranked. Descriptive statistics and the Kruskal-Wallis test were used (P < .05 considered significant). The survey response rate was 27.4% (117/427). FM and EM (CCFP and Royal College) trainees estimated a median 0, 1, and 2 hours of total didactic instruction, respectively. During that academic year, FM and EM (CCFP and Royal College) trainees cared for a median 1, 4, and 5 patients, respectively. Significant differences were noted in comfort levels across all 15 domains when compared with plastic surgery trainees. Preferences for educational interventions were ranked, with clinical rotations and traditional lecture scoring the highest. Primary care trainees are not comfortable in the diagnosis and management of thermal injuries. This may be attributed to limited clinical exposure and teaching during their postgraduate training. There exists an opportunity for specialists in burn care to collaborate with primary care training programs and deliver an educational intervention with the aim of long-lasting quality improvement.

What Cognitive Psychology Tells Us About Emergency Department Physician Decision‐making and How to Improve It

In this issue of Academic Emergency Medicine, Patterson et al. report a link between two measures of emergency department (ED) crowding –ED census and physician load – to hospital admission decisions. Disposition appeared to change based on both the degree of ED crowding and how many total patients the physician making the admission decision was carrying at the time. This translated to important swings: an average admission rate of 35% with an empty waiting room and zero patient load which increased to 40% with 12 patients waiting or physician was carrying 16 ED patients. They concluded that disposition decisions were significantly impacted by workflow concerns of both the provider and the department. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Financial Implications of the Emergency Medicine Interview Process.

Emergency medicine (EM) residency interviews are an important, yet costly process for programs and applicants. The total economic burden of the EM interviewing process is previously unstudied. Graduate medical education funding and student finances are both fragile shifting sources, which appear to fund most of these economic expenditures. The total economic impact of the EM interview season is unknown. This study sought to calculate total dollars spent by EM residency programs and senior medical students (M4) during interview season. Potential solutions for reducing this burden will be outlined. Institutional review board-approved, piloted e-mail surveys were sent to accredited (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] and American Osteopathic Association [AOA]) EM program directors (PDs) and M4 student members of EMRA. PDs were queried after the 2014-2015 interview season. PDs questions included demographics, estimated faculty, and resident and administrative time used, along with dollars spent during the 2014-2015 interview season. M4 questions included demographics and dollars spent during the 2015-2016 season. Results were reported using descriptive statistics. Financial data for EM programs were calculated with academic EM faculty, resident, and administrative assistant salaries along with reported hours used during the interview season. A total of 82 of 223 EM PDs completed the survey, reporting an mean annual cost of $210,649.04 per program to review, screen, and interview applicants based on time spent by faculty, resident, and administrative assistants. A total of 84.6% of EM program costs were due to faculty hours. A total of 180 of 1,425 EM-bound M4 students completed the survey, reporting a mean annual estimate of US$5,065.44 per student to apply and interview. Seventy-two percent of estimated costs were due to airfare and lodging. Loans and credit cards were the top two methods of payments of these interview costs by students. Extrapolating the cost of EM personnel with hours spent, the economic burden of an interview season for EM programs is approximately US$46,974,735.92. M4 students spent US$19,724,823.40 for application fees and interview-related expenses. Emergency medicine residency programs and applicants appear to spend over US$66 million per cycle on the interview process. EM residency programs may save resources by reducing faculty hours associated with the interview process and leveraging administrative and resident resources. Creation of regional or national fixed interview locations may also be appropriate. Applicants may reduce travel costs by participating in video interviews, reducing program applications, and attending regionalized interview days. A full conversation among all specialties and organized medicine needs to take place to reform the systems in place to reduce the economic burden on students and residency programs.

Exploring Scholarship and the Emergency Medicine Educator: A Workforce Study.

IntroductionRecent literature calls for initiatives to improve the quality of education studies and support faculty in approaching educational problems in a scholarly manner. Understanding the emergency medicine (EM) educator workforce is a crucial precursor to developing policies to support educators and promote education scholarship in EM. This study aims to illuminate the current workforce model for the academic EM educator.MethodsProgram leadership at EM training programs completed an online survey consisting of multiple choice, completion, and free-response type items. We calculated and reported descriptive statistics.Results112 programs participated. Mean number of core faculty/program: 16.02 ± 7.83 [14.53–17.5]. Mean number of faculty full-time equivalents (FTEs)/program dedicated to education is 6.92 ± 4.92 [5.87–7.98], including (mean FTE): Vice chair for education (0.25); director of medical education (0.13); education fellowship director (0.2); residency program director (0.83); associate residency director (0.94); assistant residency director (1.1); medical student clerkship director (0.8); assistant/associate clerkship director (0.28); simulation fellowship director (0.11); simulation director (0.42); director of faculty development (0.13). Mean number of FTEs/program for education administrative support is 2.34 ± 1.1 [2.13–2.61]. Determination of clinical hours varied; 38.75% of programs had personnel with education research expertise.ConclusionEducation faculty represent about 43% of the core faculty workforce. Many programs do not have the full spectrum of education leadership roles and educational faculty divide their time among multiple important academic roles. Clinical requirements vary. Many departments lack personnel with expertise in education research. This information may inform interventions to promote education scholarship.

Creating a Cadre of Fellowship-Trained Medical Educators, Part II: A Formal Needs Assessment to Structure Postgraduate Fellowships in Medical Education Scholarship and Leadership.

Education leaders at the 2012 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on education research proposed that dedicated postgraduate education scholarship fellowships (ESFs) might provide an effective model for developing future faculty as scholars. A formal needs assessment was performed to understand the training gap and inform the development of ESFs. A mixed-methods needs assessment was conducted of four emergency medicine national stakeholder groups in 2013: department chairs; faculty education/research leaders; existing education fellowship directors; and current education fellows/graduates. Descriptive statistics were reported for quantitative data. Qualitative data from semistructured interviews and free-text responses were analyzed using a thematic approach. Participants were 11/15 (73%) education fellowship directors, 13/20 (65%) fellows/graduates, 106/239 (44%) faculty education/research leaders, and a convenience sample of 26 department chairs. Department chairs expected new education faculty to design didactics (85%) and teach clinically (96%). Faculty education/research leaders thought new faculty were inadequately prepared for job tasks (83.7%) and that ESFs would improve the overall quality of education research (91.1%). Fellowship directors noted that ESFs provide skills, mentorship, and protected time for graduates to become productive academicians. Current fellows/graduates reported pursing an ESF to develop skills in teaching and research methodology. Stakeholder groups uniformly perceived a need for training in education theory, clinical teaching, and education research. These findings support dedicated, deliberate training in these areas. Establishment of a structure for scholarly pursuits prior to assuming a full-time position will effectively prepare new faculty. These findings may inform the development, implementation, and curricula of ESFs.

The 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda May 10, 2016, New Orleans, LA.

Shared decision making in emergency medicine has the potential to improve the quality, safety, and outcomes of emergency department (ED) patients. Given that the ED is the gateway to care for patients with a variety of illnesses and injuries and the safety net for patients otherwise unable to access care, shared decision making in the ED is relevant to numerous disciplines and the interests of the United States (U.S.) public. On May 10, 2016 the 16th annual Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference, "Shared Decision Making: Development of a Policy-Relevant Patient-Centered Research Agenda" was held in New Orleans, Louisiana. During this one-day conference clinicians, researchers, policy-makers, patient and caregiver representatives, funding agency representatives, trainees, and content experts across many areas of medicine interacted to define high priority areas for research in 1 of 6 domains: 1) diagnostic testing; 2) policy, 3) dissemination/implementation and education, 4) development and testing of shared decision making approaches and tools in practice, 5) palliative care and geriatrics, and 6) vulnerable populations and limited health literacy. This manuscript describes the current state of shared decision making in the ED context, provides an overview of the conference planning process, the aims of the conference, the focus of each respective breakout session, the roles of patient and caregiver representatives and an overview of the conference agenda. The results of this conference published in this issue of AEM provide an essential summary of the future research priorities for shared decision making to increase quality of care and patient-centered outcomes.

2015 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference Attendees.

2015 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference Attendees.

State of the Science: Tools and Measurement for Shared Decision Making.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to selecting medical tests and treatments for many situations. The goal of SDM is to ensure that patients are well informed, are meaningfully involved in decisions, and receive treatments that meet their goals and preferences. There is considerable evidence about the tools used to promote SDM, called patient decision aids, and many different measures have been developed to assess the impact of SDM. However, fairly little is known about the applicability of the tools and measures in the emergency department (ED) setting. This article builds on insights from two keynote lectures presented at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussing the state of the science for measurement of SDM and the design of patient decision aids to promote SDM conversations and highlights some key areas for further research to advance SDM in the ED.

Health Policy and Shared Decision Making in Emergency Care: A Research Agenda.

Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and other laws have promoted the use of shared decision making (SDM) in recent years, few specific policies have addressed the opportunities and challenges of utilizing SDM in the emergency department (ED). Policies relating to physician payment, quality measurement, and medical-legal risks each present unique challenges to adoption of SDM in the ED. This article summarizes findings from a health policy breakout session of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant, Patient-centered Research Agenda." The objectives were to 1) describe federal and state policies that influence utilization or assessment of SDM; 2) identify policies and policy-focused knowledge gaps that serve as barriers to adoption of ED SDM; and 3) to define a consensus-based, policy-focused research agenda to support adoption of SDM in emergency care.

Development and Testing of Shared Decision Making Interventions for Use in Emergency Care: A Research Agenda

Decision aids are evidenced-based tools designed to increase patient understanding of medical options and possible outcomes, facilitate conversation between patients and clinicians, and improve patient engagement. Decision aids have been used for shared decision making (SDM) interventions outside of the ED setting for more than a decade. Their use in the ED has only recently begun to be studied. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference SDM in practice work group regarding "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-Relevant, Patient-Centered Research Agenda." The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda for the development and testing of SDM interventions for use in emergency care that was most important to patients, clinicians, caregivers, and other key stakeholders. Using the nominal group technique, the consensus working group proposed prioritized research questions in six key domains: 1) content (i.e., clinical scenario or decision area), 2) level of evidence available, 3) tool design strategies, 4) risk communication, 5) stakeholders, and 6) outcomes.

Funding Research in Emergency Department Shared Decision Making: A Summary of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference Panel Discussion.

As part of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda," a panel of representatives from the Office of Emergency Care Research, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Heart Association, the John A. Hartford Foundation, and the Emergency Care Coordination Center were assembled to discuss funding opportunities for future research in this field. This article summarizes their discussion of funding priorities and examples of successfully funded projects related to shared decision making in emergency medicine.

Utility of 360-degree assessment of residents in a Turkish academic emergency medicine residency program

ObjectivesThis study was designed to test a 360-degree assessment tool for four of the emergency medicine resident competencies as outlined by the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine on patient care, communication skills, professionalism and system based practice in an academic Emergency Department. Material and methodsUsing the competency framework of the American Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, a 57 item-containing assessment tool was created. Based on the different exposure aspects of the involved evaluator groups, the items were integrated into seven different evaluation forms. All sixteen of 16 residents and members from each evaluator group voluntarily participated in the study. Internal consistency scores, multilayer and multilevel Kappa values were measured. Evaluator group scores and resident ranks in competency areas were compared. All evaluators were asked to comment on the applicability and usefulness of the assessment tool in emergency medicine. ResultsSeven groups completed a total of 1088 forms to evaluate 16 residents. The reliability coefficient for the faculty members was 0.99 while it was 0.60 for the ancillary staff. The interrater Kappa values for faculty members, nurses and peer assessment were relevant with a value of greater than 70%. Discussion and conclusionOur results showed that the 360-degree assessment did meet expectations by the evaluator group and residents, and that this method was readily accepted in the setting of a Akdeniz University Emergency Medicine residency training program. However, only evaluations by faculty, nurses, self and peers were reliable to have any value. Doing a 360° evaluation is time and effort consuming and thus may not be an ideal tool for larger programs.

The Role of Education in the Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Emergency Medicine: A Research Agenda.

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered communication skill that is essential for all physicians to provide quality care. Like any competency or procedural skill, it can and should be introduced to medical students during their clerkships (undergraduate medical education), taught and assessed during residency training (graduate medical education), and have documentation of maintenance throughout an emergency physician's career (denoted as continuing medical education). A subgroup representing academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty, residents, content experts, and patients convened at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM to develop a research agenda toward improving implementation of SDM through sustainable education efforts. After developing a list of potential priorities, the subgroup presented the priorities in turn to the consensus group, to the EM program directors (CORD-EM), and finally at the conference itself. The two highest-priority questions were related to determining or developing EM-applicable available tools and on-shift interventions for SDM and working to determine the proportion of the broader SDM curriculum that should be taught and assessed at each level of training. Educating patients and the community about SDM was also raised as an important concept for consideration. The remaining research priorities were divided into high-, moderate-, and lower-priority groups. Moreover, there was consensus that the overall approach to SDM should be consistent with the high-quality educational design utilized for other pertinent topics in EM.