Fiona E. Gallahue

Assessing Patient Care: Summary of the Breakout Group on Assessment of Observable Learner Performance

There is an established expectation that physicians in training demonstrate competence in all aspects of clinical care prior to entering professional practice. Multiple methods have been used to assess competence in patient care, including direct observation, simulation-based assessments, objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), global faculty evaluations, 360-degree evaluations, portfolios, self-reflection, clinical performance metrics, and procedure logs. A thorough assessment of competence in patient care requires a mixture of methods, taking into account each methods costs, benefits, and current level of evidence. At the 2012 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference on educational research, one breakout group reviewed and discussed the evidence supporting various methods of assessing patient care and defined a research agenda for the continued development of specific assessment methods based on current best practices. In this article, the authors review each methods supporting reliability and validity evidence and make specific recommendations for future educational research.

Impact of Doximity Residency Rankings on Emergency Medicine Applicant Rank Lists

Introduction This study investigates the impact of the Doximity rankings on the rank list choices made by residency applicants in emergency medicine (EM). Methods We sent an 11-item survey by email to all students who applied to EM residency programs at four different institutions representing diverse geographical regions. Students were asked questions about their perception of Doximity rankings and how it may have impacted their rank list decisions. Results Response rate was 58% of 1,372 opened electronic surveys. This study found that a majority of medical students applying to residency in EM were aware of the Doximity rankings prior to submitting rank lists (67%). One-quarter of these applicants changed the number of programs and ranks of those programs when completing their rank list based on the Doximity rankings (26%). Though the absolute number of programs changed on the rank lists was small, the results demonstrate that the EM Doximity rankings impact applicant decision-making in ranking residency programs. Conclusion While applicants do not find the Doximity rankings to be important compared to other factors in the application process, the Doximity rankings result in a small change in residency applicant ranking behavior. This unvalidated ranking, based principally on reputational data rather than objective outcome criteria, thus has the potential to be detrimental to students, programs, and the public. We feel it important for specialties to develop consensus around measurable training outcomes and provide freely accessible metrics for candidate education.

Establishing an Emergency Medicine Education Research Network

This project was developed from the research network track at the 2012 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference on education research in emergency medicine (EM). Using a combination of consensus techniques, the modified Delphi method, and qualitative research methods, the authors describe multiple aspects of developing, implementing, managing, and growing an EM education research network. A total of 175 conference attendees and 24 small-group participants contributed to discussions regarding an education research network; participants were experts in research networks, education, and education research. This article summarizes relevant conference discussions and expert opinion for recommendations on the structure of an education research network, basic operational framework, site selection, leadership, subcommittees, guidelines for authorship, logistics, and measuring success while growing and maintaining the network.

Choosing emergency medicine: Influences on medical students’ choice of emergency medicine

Background Relatively little is understood about which factors influence students’ choice of specialty and when learners ultimately make this decision. Objective The objective is to understand how experiences of medical students relate to the timing of selection of Emergency Medicine (EM) as a specialty. Of specific interest were factors such as how earlier and more positive specialty exposure may impact the decision-making process of medical students. Methods A cross-sectional survey study of EM bound 4th year US medical students (MD and DO) was performed exploring when and why students choose EM as their specialty. An electronic survey was distributed in March 2015 to all medical students who applied to an EM residency at 4 programs representing different geographical regions. Descriptive analyses and multinomial logistic regressions were performed. Results 793/1372 (58%) responded. Over half had EM experience prior to medical school. When students selected EM varied: 13.9% prior to, 50.4% during, and 35.7% after their M3 year. Early exposure, presence of an EM residency program, previous employment in the ED, experience as a pre-hospital provider, and completion of an M3 EM clerkship were associated with earlier selection. Delayed exposure to EM was associated with later selection of EM. Conclusions Early exposure and prior life experiences were associated with choosing EM earlier in medical school. The third year was identified as the most common time for definitively choosing the specialty.

Stepping Up to the Plate: Emergency Medicine Takes a Swing at Enhancing the Residency Selection Process

We, along with our colleagues on the Emergency Medicine Standardized Video Interview Working Group (EMSVI working group members are listed in Appendix A), are writing to respond to Drs. Buckley, Hoch, and Huang’s commentary on the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) standardized video interview (SVI). Our response is intended to provide a more balanced perspective on the SVI project as those who have been involved in it from the beginning and address the concerns raised by the authors.

Transition of Care Practices from Emergency Department to Inpatient: Survey Data and Development of Algorithm

Introduction We aimed to assess the current scope of handoff education and practice among resident physicians in academic centers and to propose a standardized handoff algorithm for the transition of care from the emergency department (ED) to an inpatient setting. Methods This was a cross-sectional survey targeted at the program directors, associate or assistant program directors, and faculty members of emergency medicine (EM) residency programs in the United States (U.S.). The web-based survey was distributed to potential subjects through a listserv. A panel of experts used a modified Delphi approach to develop a standardized algorithm for ED to inpatient handoff. Results 121 of 172 programs responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 70.3%. Our survey showed that most EM programs in the U.S. have some form of handoff training, and the majority of them occur either during orientation or in the clinical setting. The handoff structure from ED to inpatient is not well standardized, and in those places with a formalized handoff system, over 70% of residents do not uniformly follow it. Approximately half of responding programs felt that their current handoff system was safe and effective. About half of the programs did not formally assess the handoff proficiency of trainees. Handoffs most commonly take place over the phone, though respondents disagree about the ideal place for a handoff to occur, with nearly equivalent responses between programs favoring the bedside over the phone or face-to-face on a computer. Approximately two-thirds of responding programs reported that their residents were competent in performing ED to inpatient handoffs. Based on this survey and on the review of the literature, we developed a five-step algorithm for the transition of care from the ED to the inpatient setting. Conclusion Our results identified the current trends of education and practice in transitions of care, from the ED to the inpatient setting in U.S. academic medical centers. An algorithm, which guides this process, is proposed to address the current gap in the standardized approach to ED to inpatient handoffs that were identified in the survey’s assessment of needs.

Emergency Medicine Morbidity and Mortality Conference and Culture of Safety: The Resident Perspective

Morbidity and mortality conference (M&M) is common in emergency medicine (EM) and an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirement. We aimed to characterize the prevalence of elements of EM M&M conferences that foster a strong culture of safety.

Ready for Discharge? A Survey of Discharge Transition-of- Care Education and Evaluation in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs

This study aimed to assess current education and practices of emergency medicine (EM) residents as perceived by EM program directors to determine if there are deficits in resident discharge handoff training. This survey study was guided by the Kern model for medical curriculum development. A six-member Council of EM Residency Directors (CORD) Transitions of Care task force of EM physicians performed these steps and constructed a survey. The survey was distributed to program residency directors via the CORD listserve and/or direct contact. There were 119 responses to the survey, which were collected using an online survey tool. Over 71% of the 167 American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited EM residency programs were represented. Of those responding, 42.9% of programs reported formal training regarding discharges during initial orientation and 5.9% reported structured curriculum outside of orientation. A majority (73.9%) of programs reported that EM residents were not routinely evaluated on their discharge proficiency. Despite the ACGME requirements requiring formal handoff curriculum and evaluation, many programs do not provide formal curriculum on the discharge transition of care or evaluate EM residents on their discharge proficiency.