Search

Background Faculty diversity is a high-priority goal for academic emergency medicine (EM). Most administrators currently monitor faculty diversity using aggregate data, which may obscure underrepresentation by rank. We apply the Rank Equity Index (REI) to EM faculty data to assess rank progression. Methods We calculated the REI (% faculty cohort higher rank/% faculty cohort lower rank) for EM faculty. We performed REI analyses by faculty gender (women, men) and race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian). We compared professor/assistant professor, professor/associate professor, and associate professor/assistant professor to establish rank parity for gender and race/ethnicity. Parity is an REI of 1.0. Results REI analysis by gender demonstrates that women faculty did not achieve parity at any rank comparison in any study year. REI analysis by race/ethnicity demonstrates that all faculty of color are below parity at the assistant to associate professor promotion. Latinx faculty are at parity for associate professor to professor, but Asian and Black faculty do not achieve parity in any comparison. Intersecting gender and race/ethnicity in the REI analysis demonstrates that Asian women have the lowest REIs among all faculty ranks and races/ethnicities. Men of all races/ethnicities achieved parity in two of three rank comparisons, except for Black men, who did not achieve parity in any comparison. Conclusions REI analysis demonstrates EM women faculty and faculty of color are not achieving rank parity and are disadvantaged at the first tier of promotion. A preliminary longitudinal trend analysis suggests little progress. Asian women and Black men experience the most rank inequity. REI analysis identifies a need for focused faculty development to enhance our most vulnerable faculty's rank progression, suggesting that targeted recruitment and retention efforts of women faculty of all races/ethnicities and faculty of color, in particular, will improve diversity at every tier of faculty rank.

Sandra M. Schneider, MD, Angela F. Gardner, MD, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, Joseph P. Wood, MD, JD,Michael Ybarra, MD, Dennis M. Beck, MD, Arlen R. Stauffer, MD, Dean Wilkerson, JD, MBA, ThomasBrabson, DO, MBA, Anthony Jennings, DO, Mark Mitchell, DO, Roland B. McGrath, MD, TheodoreA. Christopher, MD, Brent King, MD, Robert L. Muelleman, MD, Mary J. Wagner, MD, DouglasM. Char, MD, Douglas L. McGee, MD, Randy L. Pilgrim, MD, Joshua B. Moskovitz, MD, MPH, AndrewR. Zinkel, MD, Michele Byers, MBA, William T. Briggs, MSN, Cherri D. Hobgood, MD, DouglasF. Kupas, MD, Jennifer Kruger, PA-C, MBA, Cary J. Stratford, PA-C, and Nicholas Jouriles, MD

Medical educators are increasingly charged with the development of outcomes-based "best practices" in medical student and resident education and patient care. To fulfill this mission, a cadre of well-trained, experienced medical education researchers is required. The experienced medical educator is in a prime position to fill this need but often lacks the training needed to successfully contribute to such a goal. Towards this end, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Group on Educational Affairs developed a series of content-based workshops that have resulted in Medical Education Research Certification (MERC), promoting skills development and a better understanding of research by educators. Subsequently, the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) partnered with the AAMC to take MERC a step further, in the MERC at CORD Scholars Program (MCSP). This venture integrates a novel, mentored, specialty-specific research project with the traditional MERC workshops. Collaborative groups, based on a common area of interest, each develop a multi-institutional project by exploring and applying the concepts learned through the MERC workshops. Participants in the inaugural MCSP have completed three MERC workshops and initiated a project. Upon program completion, each will have completed MERC certification (six workshops) and gained experience as a contributing author on a mentored education research project. Not only does this program serve as a multi-dimensional faculty development opportunity, it is also intended to act as a catalyst in developing a network of education scholars and infrastructure for educational research within the specialty of emergency medicine.

Objectives: To assess the ability of a screen-based simulation-training program to improve emergency medicine and pediatric resident performance in critical pediatric resuscitation knowledge, confidence, and skills. Methods: A pre–post, interventional design was used. Three measures of performance were created and assessed before and after intervention: a written pre-course knowledge examination, a self–efficacy confidence score, and a skills-based high-fidelity simulation code scenario. For the high-fidelity skills assessment, independent physician raters recorded and reviewed subject performance. The intervention consisted of eight screen-based pediatric resuscitation scenarios that subjects had 4 weeks to complete. Upon completion of the scenarios, all three measures were repeated. For the confidence assessment, summary pre- and post-test summary confidence scores were compared using a t-test, and for the skills assessment, pre-scores were compared with post-test measures for each individual using McNemar’s chi-square test for paired samples. Results: Twenty-six of 35 (71.3%) enrolled subjects completed the institutional review board–approved study. Increases were observed in written test scores, confidence, and some critical interventions in high-fidelity simulation. The mean improvement in cumulative confidence scores for all residents was 10.1 (SD ±4.9; range 0–19; p

ObjectivesTo report the results of a project designed to develop and implement a prototype methodology for identifying candidate patient care quality measures for potential use in assessing the outcomes and effectiveness of graduate medical education in emergency medicine. MethodsA workgroup composed of experts in emergency medicine residency education and patient care quality measurement was convened. Workgroup members performed a modified Delphi process that included iterative review of potential measures; individual expert rating of the measures on four dimensions, including measures quality of care and educational effectiveness; development of consensus on measures to be retained; external stakeholder rating of measures followed by a final workgroup review; and a post hoc stratification of measures. The workgroup completed a structured exercise to examine the linkage of patient care process and outcome measures to educational effectiveness. ResultsThe workgroup selected 62 measures for inclusion in its final set, including 43 measures for 21 clinical conditions, eight medication measures, seven measures for procedures, and four measures for department efficiency. Twenty-six measures met the more stringent criteria applied post hoc to further stratify and prioritize measures for development. Nineteen of these measures received high ratings from 75% of the workgroup and external stakeholder raters on importance for care in the ED, measures quality of care, and measures educational effectiveness; the majority of the raters considered these indicators feasible to measure. The workgroup utilized a simple framework for exploring the relationship of residency program educational activities, competencies from the six Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education general competency domains, patient care quality measures, and external factors that could intervene to affect care quality. ConclusionsNumerous patient care quality measures have potential for use in assessing the educational effectiveness and performance of graduate medical education programs in emergency medicine. The measures identified in this report can be used as a starter set for further development, implementation, and study. Implementation of the measures, especially for high-stakes use, will require resolution of significant measurement issues.

The disparities in health care and health outcomes between the majority population and cultural and racial minorities in the United States are a problem that likely is influenced by the lack of culturally competent care. Emergency medicine and other primary-care specialties remain on the front lines of this struggle because of the nature of their open-door practice. To provide culturally appropriate care, health care providers must recognize the factors impeding cultural awareness, seek to understand the biases and traditions in medical education potentially fueling this phenomenon, and create a health care community that is open to individuals' otherness, thus leading to better communication of ideas and information between patients and their health care providers. This article highlights the rationale for and current problems in teaching cultural competency and examines several different models implemented to teach and promote cultural competency along the continuum of emergency medicine learners. However, the literature addressing the true efficacy of such programs in leading to long-lasting change and improvement in minority patients' clinical outcomes remains insufficient.

Objectives: To determine if the three types of emergency medicine providers—physicians, nurses, and out-of-hospital providers (emergency medical technicians [EMTs])—differ in their identification, disclosure, and reporting of medical error. Methods: A convenience sample of providers in an academic emergency department evaluated ten case vignettes that represented two error types (medication and cognitive) and three severity levels. For each vignette, providers were asked the following: 1) Is this an error? 2) Would you tell the patient? 3) Would you report this to a hospital committee? To assess differences in identification, disclosure, and reporting by provider type, error type, and error severity, the authors constructed three-way tables with the nonparametric Somers' D clustered on participant. To assess the contribution of disclosure instruction and environmental variables, fixed-effects regression stratified by provider type was used. Results: Of the 116 providers who were eligible, 103 (40 physicians, 26 nurses, and 35 EMTs) had complete data. Physicians were more likely to classify an event as an error (78%) than nurses (71%; p = 0.04) or EMTs (68%; p < 0.01). Nurses were less likely to disclose an error to the patient (59%) than physicians (71%; p = 0.04). Physicians were the least likely to report the error (54%) compared with nurses (68%; p = 0.02) or EMTs (78%; p < 0.01). For all provider and error types, identification, disclosure, and reporting increased with increasing severity. Conclusions: Improving patient safety hinges on the ability of health care providers to accurately identify, disclose, and report medical errors. Interventions must account for differences in error identification, disclosure, and reporting by provider type.

Objectives: To gather preliminary data on how the three major types of emergency medicine (EM) providers, physicians, nurses (RNs), and out-of-hospital personnel (EMTs), differ in error identification, disclosure, and reporting. Methods: A convenience sample of emergency department (ED) providers completed a brief survey designed to evaluate error frequency, disclosure, and reporting practices as well as error-based discussion and educational activities. Results: One hundred sixteen subjects participated: 41 EMTs (35%), 33 RNs (28%), and 42 physicians (36%). Forty-five percent of EMTs, 56% of RNs, and 21% of physicians identified no clinical errors during the preceding year. when errors were identified, physicians learned of them via dialogue with RNs (58%), patients (13%), pharmacy (35%), and attending physicians (35%). For known errors, all providers were equally unlikely to inform the team caring for the patient. Disclosure to patients was limited and varied by provider type (19% EMTs, 23% RNs, and 74% physicians). Disclosure education was rare, with ≤15% of any provider type receiving such instruction. Yet, 59% of physicians had observed another provider disclose an error to a patient. Error discussions are widespread, with all providers indicating they discussed their own as well as the errors of others. Conclusions: This study suggests that error identification, disclosure, and reporting challenge all members of the ED care delivery team. Provider-specific education and enhanced teamwork training will be required to further the transformation of the ED into a high-reliability organization.

Medical school faculty members who specialize in the scholarship of teaching have unique requirements for academic advancement in universities with clinician-educator series. While excellence in teaching is the cornerstone of achievement, attention to traditional academic pursuits improves the likelihood of a favorable review by the institution's promotion and tenure committee. The teaching portfolio is an effective means to document performance. Ongoing faculty development and sound mentoring relationships facilitate the academic advancement of clinician-educators.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has challenged all residencies with a new paradigm-to teach and evaluate residents based on six core competencies. One of these core competencies is clinical assessment. Standardized patients and direct observation are the most promising for emergency medicine educators to use to assess this competency. There is much room for research and national standardization of methods.

Excellent communication and interpersonal (C-IP) skills are a universal requirement for a well-rounded emergency physician. This requirement for C-IP skill excellence is a direct outgrowth of the expectations of our patients and a prerequisite to working in the increasingly complex emergency department environment. Directed education and assessment of C-IP skills are critical components of all emergency medicine (EM) training programs and now are a requirement of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project. In keeping with its mission to improve the quality of EM education and in response to the ACGME Outcome Project, the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD-EM) hosted a consensus conference focusing on the application of the six core competencies to EM. The objective of this article is to report the results of this consensus conference as it relates to the C-IP competency. There were four primary goals: 1) define the C-IP skills competency for EM, 2) define the assessment methods currently used in other specialties, 3) identify the methods suggested by the ACGME for use in C-IP skills, and 4) analyze the applicability of these assessment techniques to EM. Ten specific communication competencies are defined for EM. Assessment techniques for evaluation of these C-IP competencies and a timeline for implementation are also defined. Standardized patients and direct observation were identified as the criterion standard assessment methods of C-IP skills; however, other methods for assessment are also discussed.

Resident teaching is a competency that must be recognized, developed, and assessed. The ACGME core competencies include the role of physician as educator to "educate patients and families" and to "facilitate the learning of students and other health care professionals." Residents spend a significant proportion of their time in teaching activities, and students report achieving much of their clinical learning from their interactions with residents. Although many residents enjoy their critical role as teacher, many do not feel well prepared to teach. This article summarizes a preliminary curriculum of modules for a resident teacher-training program for emergency medicine residents. The goal of these modules is to provide learning objectives and an initial structure through which residents could improve basic teaching skills. Many of these skills are adaptable to residents' interactions with each other and with students, other healthcare professionals, and patients. Each module and corresponding teaching exercises can be found at http://www.saem.org.

Safe healthcare delivery in the emergency department is a team sport. Medical educators seek efficient and effective methods to teach and practice teamwork skills to all levels of interdisciplinary learners with the goal of enhancing communication, insuring smooth clinical operations, and improving patient safety. We present a new interdisciplinary, health professions teamwork curriculum, modified from TeamSTEPPS, that is efficient, effective, and can be delivered using multiple teaching modalities. This flexible curriculum structure begins with a brief didactic core designed to orient the learners to team concepts and invest them in the rationale for focusing on teamwork skills. This is followed by one of four additional instructional modalities: traditional didactic, interactive audience response didactic, low-fidelity simulation (role play), and high-fidelity patient simulation. Each of these additional modalities can be utilized singly or in combination to enhance the learners’ attitudes, knowledge, and skills in team-based behaviors. Interdisciplinary cases have been defined, piloted, modified, and deployed at two major universities across more than 400 learners. Interdisciplinary simulation scenarios range from team-based role play to high-fidelity human patient simulation. Assessment cases using standardized patients are designed for interdisciplinary applications and focus on observable team-based behaviors rather than clinical knowledge. All of these cases have accompanying assessment instruments for attitudes, knowledge, and skills. These instruments may be used for formative assessment to provide feedback to the learners and standardize the faculty's information delivery. If used in a summative manner they provide data for course completion criteria, remediation, or competency assessment.