Search

INTRODUCTION: There is no clear unified definition of “county programs” in emergency medicine (EM). Key residency directories are varied in designation, despite it being one of the most important match factors for applicants. The Council of Residency Directors EM County Program Community of Practice consists of residency program leadership from a unified collective of programs that identify as “county.” This paper's framework was spurred from numerous group discussions to better understand unifying themes that define county programs. METHODOLOGY: This institutional review board–exempt work provides qualitative descriptive results via a mixed‐methods inquiry utilizing survey data and quantitative data from programs that self‐designate as county. UNIQUE TREATMENT, ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE: Most respondents work, identify, and trained at a county program. The majority defined county programs by commitment to care for the underserved, funding from the city or state, low‐resourced, and urban setting. Major qualitative themes included mission, clinical environment, research, training, and applicant recommendations. Comparing the attributes of programs by self‐described type of training environment, county programs are typically larger, older, in central metro areas, and more likely to be 4 years in duration and have higher patient volumes when compared to community or university programs. When comparing hospital‐level attributes of primary training sites county programs are more likely to be owned and operated by local governments or governmental hospital districts and authorities and see more disproportionate‐share hospital patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN EM: To be considered a county program we recommend some or most of the following attributes be present: a shared mission to medically underserved and vulnerable patients, an urban location with city or county funding, an ED with high patient volumes, supportive of resident autonomy, and research expertise focusing on underserved populations.

In the spring of 2020, emergency physicians found themselves in new, uncharted territory as there were few data available for understanding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) virus. In response, knowledge was being crowd sourced and shared across online platforms. The “wisdom of crowds” is an important vehicle for sharing information and expertise. In this article, we explore concepts related to the social psychology of group decisionmaking and knowledge translation. We then analyze a scenario in which the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), a professional medical society, used the wisdom of crowds (via the EngagED platform) to disseminate clinically relevant information and create a useful resource called the “ACEP COVID‐19 Field Guide.” We also evaluate the crowd‐sourced approach, content, and attributes of EngagED compared to other social media platforms. We conclude that professional organizations can play a more prominent role using the wisdom of crowds for augmenting pandemic response efforts.

Introduction The average number of applications per allopathic applicant to emergency medicine (EM) residency programs in the United States (US) has increased significantly since 2014. This increase in applications has caused a significant burden on both programs and applicants. Our goal in this study was to investigate the drivers of this application increase so as to inform strategies to mitigate the surge. Methods An expert panel designed an anonymous, web-based survey, which was distributed to US allopathic senior applicants in the 2017-2018 EM match cycle via the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine and the Emergency Medicine Residents Association listservs for completion between the rank list certification deadline and release of match results. The survey collected descriptive statistics and factors affecting application decisions. Results A total of 532 of 1748 (30.4%) US allopathic seniors responded to the survey. Of these respondents, 47.3% felt they had applied to too many programs, 11.8% felt they had applied to too few, and 57.7% felt that their perception of their own competitiveness increased their number of applications. Application behavior of peers going into EM was identified as the largest external factor driving an increase in applications (61.1%), followed by US Medical Licensing Exam scores (46.9%) - the latter was most pronounced in applicants who self-perceived as "less competitive." The most significant limiter of application numbers was the cost of using the Electronic Residency Application Service (34.3%). Conclusion A substantial group of EM applicants identified that they were over-applying to residencies. The largest driver of this process was individual applicant response to the behavior of their peers who were also going into EM. Understanding these motivations may help inform solutions to overapplication.

International Medical Graduate (IMG) physicians applying to residency training programs in a country different from where they completed medical school, bring beneficial diversity to a training program, but also face significant challenges matching into an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency program. Despite the growing number of IMG applications in Emergency Medicine (EM), there is a paucity of targeted recommendations for IMG applicants. As a result, the Council of Residency Directors (CORD) Advising Students Committee in EM (ASC-EM) created a dedicated IMG Advising Team to create a set of evidence-based advising recommendations based on longitudinal data from the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) and information collected from EM program directors and clerkship directors. IMG applicants should obtain at least two EM standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs), review IMG matched percentages for programs-of-interest, analyze their objective scores with the previous matched cohorts, and rank at least 12 programs to maximize their chances of matching into EM.

Introduction In the context of the upcoming single accreditation system for graduate medical education resulting from an agreement between the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), American Osteopathic Association and American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, we saw the opportunity for charting a new course for emergency medicine (EM) scholarly activity (SA). Our goal was to engage relevant stakeholders to produce a consensus document. Methods Consensus building focused on the goals, definition, and endpoints of SA. Representatives from stakeholder organizations were asked to help develop a survey regarding the SA requirement. The survey was then distributed to those with vested interests. We used the preliminary data to find areas of concordance and discordance and presented them at a consensus-building session. Outcomes were then re-ranked. Results By consensus, the primary role(s) of SA should be the following: 1) instruct residents in the process of scientific inquiry; 2) expose them to the mechanics of research; 3) teach them lifelong skills, including search strategies and critical appraisal; and 4) teach them how to formulate a question, search for the answer, and evaluate its strength. To meet these goals, the activity should have the general elements of hypothesis generation, data collection and analytical thinking, and interpretation of results. We also determined consensus on the endpoints, and acceptable documentation of the outcome. Conclusion This consensus document may serve as a best-practices guideline for EM residency programs by delineating the goals, definitions, and endpoints for EM residents’ SA. However, each residency program must evaluate its available scholarly activity resources and individually implement requirements by balancing the ACGME Review Committee for Emergency Medicine requirements with their own circumstances.