Search

As the marketplace for academic positions in emergency medicine grows more competitive, it becomes increasingly important for residents who desire academic careers to distinguish themselves during their residency. This report attempts to outline a road map for department and residency program leaders to help their houseofficers become successful candidates for an academic emergency medicine position. Specific ways a resident can enhance his or her "academic marketability" include 1) involvement in research, 2) establishment of a track record of productivity via scholarly writing, 3) awareness of the literature in the specialty, 4) involvement in specialty organizations and hospital committees, 5) competition for national awards, 6) gaining education skills, 7) developing an academic niche, and 8) fellowship training.

Objectives: To date, no studies in emergency medicine (EM) have addressed the educational value of the Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine's (RRC-EM) requirement for patient follow-up (FU). The authors examined whether performance of patient FU improved EM resident education. Methods: All EM resident FU encounters from September 25, 2001, through September 24, 2002, were documented and analyzed. All EM residents at a regional tertiary referral emergency department (ED) initiated patient FU encounters by entering information regarding patients' initial ED presentations into a Web-based follow-up system (WBFUS), subsequently entered FU information, and indicated whether they thought that the specific FU encounters improved their education (yes/no). Supervising faculty members then reviewed the residents' completed FU entries. Blinded to residents' responses regarding educational utility, faculty members evaluated whether they thought the specific FU encounters were educational for the residents (yes/no). Data entered into the WBFUS were then summarized as percentages. Results: Eight hundred forty-seven FU encounters were completed by 18 EM residents and 29 EM faculty. Ninety-three percent of the FU entries were deemed by at least one evaluator (resident or faculty) to have educational value. Residents found the act of performing FU educational in 81.3% of cases, whereas faculty thought 80.4% were educational for the resident. Although the residents and faculty agreed on the educational value in 75.4% of cases, the overall strength of the agreement was slight to fair (kappa statistic = 0.21). Conclusions: This study indicates that EM residents and faculty believe that the act of performing patient FU has educational value for EM residents; however, the interobserver agreement between residents and faculty was low.

Objective: To determine whether changes in graduate medical education (GME) funding have had an impact on emergency medicine (EM) residency training programs. Methods: A 34-question survey was mailed to the program directors (PDs) of all 115 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited EM residency programs in the United States in the fall of 1998, requesting information concerning the impact of changes in GME funding on various aspects of the EM training. The results were then compared with a similar unpublished survey conducted in the fall of 1996. Results: One hundred one completed surveys were returned (88% response rate). Seventy-one (70%) of the responding EM residency programs were PGY-I through PGY-III, compared with 55 (61%) of the responding programs in 1996. The number of PGY-II through PGY-IV programs decreased from 25 (28%) of responding programs in 1996 to 17 (16%). The number of PGY-I through PGY-IV programs increased slightly (13 vs 10); the number of EM residency positions remained relatively stable. Fifteen programs projected an increase in their number of training positions in the next two years, while only three predicted a decrease. Of the respondents, 56 programs reported reductions in non-EM residency positions and 35 programs reported elimination of fellowship positions at their institutions. Only four of these were EM fellowships. Forty-six respondents reported a reduction in the number of non-EM residents rotating through their EDs, and of these, 11 programs reported this had a moderate to significant effect on their ability to adequately staff the ED with resident physicians. Sixteen programs limited resident recruitment to only those eligible for the full three years of GME funding. Eighty-seven EM programs reported no change in faculty size due to funding issues. Sixty-two programs reported no change in the total number of hours of faculty coverage in the ED, while 34 programs reported an increase. Three EM programs reported recommendations being made to close their residency programs in the near future. Conclusions: Changes in GME funding have not caused a decrease in the number of existing EM residency and fellowship training positions, but may have had an impact in other areas, including: an increase in the number of EM programs structured in a PGY-I through PGY-III format (with a corresponding decrease in the number of PGY-II through PGY-IV programs); a decrease in the number of non-EM residents rotating through the ED; restriction of resident applicants who are ineligible for full GME funding from consideration by some EM training programs; and an increase in the total number of faculty clinical hours without an increase in faculty size.