Moshe Weizberg

What Does Remediation and Probation Status Mean? A Survey of Emergency Medicine Residency Program Directors

OBJECTIVES Emergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PDs) nationwide place residents on remediation and probation. However, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the EM PDs have not defined these terms, and individual institutions must set guidelines defining a change in resident status from good standing to remediation or probation. The primary objective of this study was to determine if EM PDs follow a common process to guide actions when residents are placed on remediation and probation. METHODS An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to EM PDs via e-mail using SurveyMonkey to determine the current practice followed after residents are placed on remediation or probation. The survey queried four designations: informal remediation, formal remediation, informal probation, and formal probation. These designations were compared for deficits in the domains of medical knowledge (MK) and non-MK remediation. The survey asked what process for designation exists and what actions are triggered, specifically if documentation is placed in a residents file, if the graduate medical education (GME) office is notified, if faculty are informed, or if resident privileges are limited. Descriptive data are reported. RESULTS Eighty-one of 160 PDs responded. An official policy on remediation and/or probation was reported by 41 (50.6%) programs. The status of informal remediation is used by 73 (90.1%), 80 (98.8%) have formal remediation, 40 (49.4%) have informal probation, and 79 (97.5%) have formal probation. There was great variation among PDs in the management and definition of remediation and probation. Between 81 and 86% of programs place an official letter into the residents file regarding formal remediation and probation. However, only about 50% notify the GME office when a resident is placed on formal remediation. There were no statistical differences between MK and non-MK remediation practices. CONCLUSIONS There is significant variation among EM programs regarding the process of remediation and probation. The definition of these terms and the actions triggered are variable across programs. Based on these findings, suggestions toward a standardized approach for remediation and probation in GME programs are provided.

What is the prevalence and success of remediation of emergency medicine residents

Introduction The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of remediation, competency domains for remediation, the length, and success rates of remediation in emergency medicine (EM). Methods We developed the survey in Surveymonkey™ with attention to content and response process validity. EM program directors responded how many residents had been placed on remediation in the last three years. Details regarding the remediation were collected including indication, length and success. We reported descriptive data and estimated a multinomial logistic regression model. Results We obtained 126/158 responses (79.7%). Ninety percent of programs had at least one resident on remediation in the last three years. The prevalence of remediation was 4.4%. Indications for remediation ranged from difficulties with one core competency to all six competencies (mean 1.9). The most common were medical knowledge (MK) (63.1% of residents), patient care (46.6%) and professionalism (31.5%). Mean length of remediation was eight months (range 1–36 months). Successful remediation was 59.9% of remediated residents; 31.3% reported ongoing remediation. In 8.7%, remediation was deemed “unsuccessful.” Training year at time of identification for remediation (post-graduate year [PGY] 1), longer time spent in remediation, and concerns with practice-based learning (PBLI) and professionalism were found to have statistically significant association with unsuccessful remediation. Conclusion Remediation in EM residencies is common, with the most common areas being MK and patient care. The majority of residents are successfully remediated. PGY level, length of time spent in remediation, and the remediation of the competencies of PBLI and professionalism were associated with unsuccessful remediation.

Have First-Year Emergency Medicine Residents Achieved Level 1 on Care-Based Milestones?

BACKGROUND Residents in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited emergency medicine (EM) residencies were assessed on 23 educational milestones to capture their progression from medical student level (Level 1) to that of an EM attending physician (Level 5). Level 1 was conceptualized to be at the level of an incoming postgraduate year (PGY)-1 resident; however, this has not been confirmed. OBJECTIVES Our primary objective in this study was to assess incoming PGY-1 residents to determine what percentage achieved Level 1 for the 8 emergency department (ED) patient care-based milestones (PC 1-8), as assessed by faculty. Secondary objectives involved assessing what percentage of residents had achieved Level 1 as assessed by themselves, and finally, we calculated the absolute differences between self- and faculty assessments. METHODS Incoming PGY-1 residents at 4 EM residencies were assessed by faculty and themselves during their first month of residency. Performance anchors were adapted from ACGME milestones. RESULTS Forty-one residents from 4 programs were included. The percentage of residents who achieved Level 1 for each subcompetency on faculty assessment ranged from 20% to 73%, and on self-assessment from 34% to 92%. The majority did not achieve Level 1 on faculty assessment of milestones PC-2, PC-3, PC-5a, and PC-6, and on self-assessment of PC-3 and PC-5a. Self-assessment was higher than faculty assessment for PC-2, PC-5b, and PC-6. CONCLUSIONS Less than 75% of PGY-1 residents achieved Level 1 for ED care-based milestones. The majority did not achieve Level 1 on 4 milestones. Self-assessments were higher than faculty assessments for several milestones.

PILOT STUDY ON DOCUMENTATION SKILLS: IS THERE ADEQUATE TRAINING IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE RESIDENCY?

BACKGROUND Thorough and accurate documentation in the medical record is important, and documentation skills should be an integral component of emergency medicine (EM) residency training. STUDY OBJECTIVE We sought to study the documentation skills of EM residents as they relate to emergency department (ED) reimbursement. METHODS This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study. We reviewed all charts of patients presenting to the adult ED during a 2-week period. We compared three groups: patients seen primarily by an EM resident, patients seen primarily by a physician assistant (PA), and patients seen primarily by an attending emergency physician. Outcome measures were the incidence of downcodes and dollars lost to downcodes in all groups. RESULTS There were 212 patients in the resident group, 683 patients in the PA group, and 437 patients in the attending group. There were 12 downcodes (5.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.96-9.70) in the resident group, 10 downcodes (1.5%, 95% CI 0.70-2.68) in the PA group, and 17 downcodes (3.9%, 95% CI 2.28-6.14) in the attending group (p = 0.002). The mean dollar lost per patient seen in the resident group was

Defining uniform processes for remediation, probation, and termination in residency training

3.21 (95% CI 1.41-5.00);

Should Osteopathic Students Applying to Allopathic Emergency Medicine Programs Take the USMLE Exam

0.91 (95% CI 0.33-1.49) in the PA group; and

Developing and Implementing a Multi-Source Feedback Tool to Assess Competencies of Emergency Medicine Residents in the United States

2.23 (95% CI 1.17-3.28) in the attending group (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION Charts documented primarily by EM residents were more likely to be downcoded than charts documented primarily by PAs or ED attendings. This downcode rate resulted in a greater loss of revenue in the resident group. We believe this represents an area for improvement in EM residency education.

Spontaneous, resolving S1Q3T3 in pulmonary embolism: A case report and literature review on prognostic value of electrocardiography score for pulmonary embolism.

It is important that residency programs identify trainees who progress appropriately, as well as identify residents who fail to achieve educational milestones as expected so they may be remediated. The process of remediation varies greatly across training programs, due in part to the lack of standardized definitions for good standing, remediation, probation, and termination. The purpose of this educational advancement is to propose a clear remediation framework including definitions, management processes, documentation expectations and appropriate notifications. Informal remediation is initiated when a resident’s performance is deficient in one or more of the outcomes-based milestones established by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but not significant enough to trigger formal remediation. Formal remediation occurs when deficiencies are significant enough to warrant formal documentation because informal remediation failed or because issues are substantial. The process includes documentation in the resident’s file and notification of the graduate medical education office; however, the documentation is not disclosed if the resident successfully remediates. Probation is initiated when a resident is unsuccessful in meeting the terms of formal remediation or if initial problems are significant enough to warrant immediate probation. The process is similar to formal remediation but also includes documentation extending to the final verification of training and employment letters. Termination involves other stakeholders and occurs when a resident is unsuccessful in meeting the terms of probation or if initial problems are significant enough to warrant immediate termination.

Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' Standardized Letter of Recommendation: The Program Director's Perspective

Introduction Board scores are an important aspect of an emergency medicine (EM) residency application. Residency directors use these standardized tests to objectively evaluate an applicant’s potential and help decide whether to interview a candidate. While allopathic (MD) students take the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), osteopathic (DO) students take the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX). It is difficult to compare these scores. Previous literature proposed an equation to predict USMLE based on COMLEX. Recent analyses suggested this may no longer be accurate. DO students applying to allopathic programs frequently ask whether they should take USMLE to overcome this potential disadvantage. The objective of the study is to compare the likelihood to match of DO applicants who reported USMLE to those who did not, and to clarify how important program directors consider it is whether or not an osteopathic applicant reported a USMLE score. Methods We conducted a review of Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) data for 2010–2011 in conjunction with a survey of EM residency programs. We reviewed the number of allopathic and osteopathic applicants, the number of osteopathic applicants who reported a USMLE score, and the percentage of successful match. We compared the percentage of osteopathic applicants who reported a USMLE score who matched compared to those who did not report USMLE. We also surveyed allopathic EM residency programs to understand how important it is that osteopathic (DO) students take USMLE. Results There were 1,482 MD students ranked EM programs; 1,277 (86%, 95% CI 84.3–87.9) matched. There were 350 DO students ranked EM programs; 181 (52%, 95% CI 46.4–57.0) matched (difference=34%, 95% CI 29.8–39.0, p<0.0001). There were 208 DO students reported USMLE; 126 (61%, 95% CI 53.6–67.2) matched. 142 did not report USMLE; 55 (39%, 95% CI 30.7–47.3) matched (difference=22%, 95% CI 11.2–32.5, p<0.0001). Survey results: 39% of program directors reported that it is extremely important that osteopathic students take USMLE, 38% stated it is somewhat important, and 22% responded not at all important. Conclusion DO students who reported USMLE were more likely to match. DO students applying to allopathic EM programs should consider taking USMLE to improve their chances of a successful match.

362: Documentation and Coding Skills: Is There Adequate Training in Emergency Medicine Residency?

Multisource feedback (MSF) has potential value in learner assessment, but has not been broadly implemented nor studied in emergency medicine (EM). This study aimed to adapt existing MSF instruments for emergency department implementation, measure feasibility, and collect initial validity evidence to support score interpretation for learner assessment.