Search

Introduction: Leadership positions occupied by women within academic emergency medicine have remained stagnant despite increasing numbers of women with faculty appointments. We distributed a multi-institutional survey to women faculty and residents to evaluate categorical characteristics contributing to success and differences between the two groups. Methods: An institutional review board-approved electronic survey was distributed to women faculty and residents at eight institutions and were completed anonymously. We created survey questions to assess multiple categories: determination; resiliency; career support and obstacles; career aspiration; and gender discrimination. Most questions used a Likert five-point scale. Responses for each question and category were averaged and deemed significant if the average was greater than or equal to 4 in the affirmative, or less than or equal to 2 in the negative. We calculated proportions for binary questions. Results: The overall response rate was 55.23% (95/172). The faculty response rate was 54.1% (59/109) and residents' response rate was 57.1% (36/63). Significant levels of resiliency were reported, with a mean score of 4.02. Childbearing and rearing were not significant barriers overall but were more commonly reported as barriers for faculty over residents (P <0.001). Obstacles reported included a lack of confidence during work-related negotiations and insufficient research experience. Notably, 68.4% (65/95) of respondents experienced gender discrimination and 9.5% (9/95) reported at least one encounter of sexual assault by a colleague or supervisor during their career. Conclusion: Targeted interventions to promote female leadership in academic emergency medicine include coaching on negotiation skills, improved resources and mentorship to support research, and enforcement of safe work environments. Female emergency physician resiliency is high and not a barrier to career advancement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Diagnostic testing represents a significant portion of healthcare spending, and cost should be considered when ordering such tests. Needless and excessive spending may occur without an appreciation of the impact on the larger healthcare system. Knowledge regarding the cost of diagnostic testing among emergency medicine (EM) residents has not previously been studied. Methods: A survey was administered to 20 EM residents from a single ACGME-accredited three-year EM residency program, asking for an estimation of patient charges for 20 commonly ordered laboratory tests and seven radiological exams. We compared responses between residency classes to evaluate whether there was a difference based on level of training. Results: The survey completion rate was 100% (20/20 residents). We noted significant discrepancies between the median resident estimates and actual charge to patient for both laboratory and radiological exams. Nearly all responses were an underestimate of the actual cost. The group median underestimation for laboratory testing was $114, for radiographs $57, and for computed tomography exams was $1,058. There was improvement in accuracy with increasing level of training. Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrates that EM residents have a poor understanding of the charges burdening patients and health insurance providers. In order to make balanced decisions with regard to diagnostic testing, providers must appreciate these factors. Education regarding the cost of providing emergency care is a potential area for improvement of EM residency curricula, and warrants further attention and investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Transitions of care present a risk for communication error and may adversely affect patient care. This study addresses the scope of current handoff practices amongst U.S. emergency medicine ( EM) residents. In addition, it evaluates current educational and evaluation practices related to handoffs. Given the ever-increasing emphasis on transitions of care in medicine, we sought to determine if interval changes in resident transition of care education, assessment, and proficiency have occurred. Methods This was a cross-sectional survey study guided by the Kern model for medical curriculum development. The Council of Residency Directors Listserv provided access to 175 programs. The survey focused on elucidating current practices of handoffs from emergency physicians ( EPs) to EPs, including handoff location and duration, use of any assistive tools, and handoff documentation in the emergency department ( ED) patient's medical record. Multiple-choice questions were the primary vehicle for the response process. A four-point Likert-type scale was used in questions regarding perceived satisfaction and competency. Respondents were not required to answer all questions. Responses were compared to results from a similar 2011 study for interval changes. Results A total of 127 of 175 programs responded to the survey, making the overall response rate 72.6%. Over half of respondents (72 of 125, 57.6%) indicated that their ED uses a standardized handoff protocol, which is a significant increase from 43.2% in 2011 (p = 0.018). Of the programs that do have a standardized system, a majority (72 of 113, 63.7%) of resident physicians use it regularly. Significant increases were noted in the number of programs offering formal training during orientation (73.2% from 59.2%; p = 0.015), decreases in the number of programs offering no training (2.4% from 10.2%; p = 0.013), and no assessment of proficiency (51.5% from 69.8%; p = 0.006). No significant interval changes were noted in handoffs being documented in the patient's medical record (57.4%), the percentage of computer/electronic signouts, or the level of dissatisfaction with handoff tools (54.1%). Less than two-thirds of respondents (80 of 126, 63.5%) indicated that their residents were 'competent' or 'extremely competent' in delivering and receiving handoffs. Conclusions An insufficient level of handoff training is currently mandated or available for EM residents, and their handoff skills appear to be developed mostly informally throughout residency training with varying results. Programs that have created a standardized protocol are not ensuring that the protocol is actually being employed in the clinical arena. Handoff proficiency most often goes unevaluated, although it is improved from 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Academic Emergency Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)