Search

Completing an emergency medicine (EM) away rotation is integral to matching successfully into an EM residency program. The demand for EM away rotations (ARs) drives students to submit numerous applications without evidence-based recommendations to guide stakeholders on the approach or number to submit.We conducted a survey study of EM-bound fourth-year medical students to gain insight into their AR application experiences, outcomes, and perceptions.We distributed a 40-item questionnaire to EM applicants in Fall 2018 via e-mail through the Clerkship Directors in Emergency Medicine, Council of Residency Directors in EM, and Emergency Medicine Residents' Association listservs. Responses were evaluated using quantitative and qualitative analysis. Primary outcomes were the number of AR applications submitted and AR offers received by students. Secondary outcomes were students' self-assessment of their competitiveness, differences in AR application numbers by degree type, sources of student advising, and student perceptions of the AR application process.There were 253 respondents, consisting of 192 allopathic (MD) and 61 osteopathic (DO) medical students, who met the inclusion criteria, representing about 10% of the applicant pool. On average, students submitted 13.97 applications (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.59-16.35), received 3.25 offers (95% CI 3.01-3.49), and accepted 2.22 offers (95% CI 2.08-2.36). DO candidates submitted twice as many applications as MD candidates while experiencing a similar rate of offers received. Peer influence (n = 154, 61%), peer online advising networks (n = 83, 33%), and self-assessment (n = 114, 45%) were the most often reported causes of increased applications; cost (n = 104, 41%) and geographic limitations (n = 114, 45%) were the most often reported causes of decreased applications. Open-response analysis revealed frustration with lack of standardization (n = 44, 29.5%), insufficient transparency on available positions (n = 37, 24.8%), limited communication (n = 30, 20.1%), and cost (n = 12, 8.1%).This study showed that, as a whole, students received one away rotation offer for every four to five applications submitted. It clarified factors contributing to increased EM away rotation application submissions and associated stressors inherent in the application experience. Our findings offer insights to inform advising recommendations. They also suggest that stakeholders consider standardizing the process and improve communication over spot availability and application status.

Background Free Open-Access Medical education (FOAM) use among residents continues to rise. However, it often lacks quality assurance processes and residents receive little guidance on quality assessment. The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources tool (AAT) was created for FOAM appraisal by and for expert educators and has demonstrated validity in this context. It has yet to be evaluated in other populations. Objectives We assessed the AAT's usability in a diverse population of practicing emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and medical students; solicited feedback; and developed a revised tool. Methods As part of the Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ) study, we recruited medical students, EM residents, and EM attendings to evaluate five FOAM posts with the AAT and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback via an online survey. Two independent analysts performed a qualitative thematic analysis with discrepancies resolved through discussion and negotiated consensus. This analysis informed development of an initial revised AAT, which was then further refined after pilot testing among the author group. The final tool was reassessed for reliability. Results Of 330 recruited international participants, 309 completed all ratings. The Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) score was the component most frequently reported as difficult to use. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: for ease of use-understandable, logically structured, concise, and aligned with educational value. Limitations include deviation from questionnaire best practices, validity concerns, and challenges assessing evidence-based medicine. Themes supporting its use include evaluative utility and usability. The author group pilot tested the initial revised AAT, revealing a total score average measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of moderate reliability (ICC = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0 to 0.962). The final AAT's average measure ICC was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.77 to 0.95). Conclusions We developed the final revised AAT from usability feedback. The new score has significantly increased usability, but will need to be reassessed for reliability in a broad population.

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.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on undergraduate medical education with limitation of patient care activities and disruption to medical licensing examinations. In an effort to promote both safety and equity, the emergency medicine (EM) community has recommended no away rotations for EM applicants and entirely virtual interviews during this year's residency application cycle. These changes affect the components of the EM residency application most highly regarded by program directors - Standardized Letters of Evaluation from EM rotations, board scores, and interactions during the interview. The Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine Application Process Improvement Committee suggests solutions not only for the upcoming year but also to address longstanding difficulties within the process, encouraging residency programs to leverage these challenges as an opportunity for disruptive innovation.

The Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (CORD) Advising Students Committee in Emergency Medicine (ASC-EM) anticipates institutional and regional variability in both the spread and response to COVID-19. Travel restrictions and host institution rotation closures will impact the number of emergency medicine (EM) rotations EM-bound medical students can complete in an unprecedented manner. They may prevent students from completing any away rotations this academic cycle, challenging the students’ ability to obtain EM Standardized Letters of Evaluation (SLOEs). EM’s emphasis on residency group SLOEs over other letter types creates an undue burden on these vulnerable students and makes the application process intrinsically inequitable. This inequity warrants a reevaluation of the current application practice. This article outlines ASC-EM's proposed recommendations for all stakeholders, including EM program leadership, medical schools, and EM-bound medical students, to consider for the upcoming EM application cycle.

Background The objective of this study was to determine the advising and emergency medicine (EM) residency selection practices for special population applicant groups for whom traditional advice may not apply. Methods A survey was distributed on the Council of Residency Directors in EM and Clerkship Directors in EM Academy listservs. Multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and fill-in-the-blank questions addressed the average EM applicant and special population groups (osteopathic; international medical graduate (IMG); couples; at-risk; re-applicant; dual-accreditation applicant; and military). Percentages and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were calculated. Results One hundred four surveys were completed. Of respondents involved in the interview process, 2 or more standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs) were recommended for osteopathic (90.1% [95% CI 84–96]), IMG (82.5% [73–92]), dual-accreditation (46% [19–73]), and average applicants (48.5% [39–58]). Recommendations for numbers of residency applications to submit were 21–30 (50.5% [40.7–60.3]) for the average applicant, 31–40 (41.6% [31.3–51.8]) for osteopathic, and > 50 (50.9% [37.5–64.4]) for IMG. For below-average Step 1 performance, 56.0% [46.3–65.7] were more likely to interview with an average Step 2 score. 88.1% [81.8–94.4] will consider matching an EM-EM couple. The majority were more likely to interview a military applicant with similar competitiveness to a traditional applicant. Respondents felt the best option for re-applicants was to pursue the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) for a preliminary residency position. Conclusion Advising and residency selection practices for special population applicants differ from those of traditional EM applicants. These data serve as an important foundation for advising these distinct applicant groups in ways that were previously only speculative. While respondents agree on many advising recommendations, outliers exist.

Background Emergency medicine (EM) program directors rely largely on the standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) to help determine which applicants to interview in the face of an increasing number of applications. To further characterize the SLOE's role in the EM application process, particularly the global assessment (GA) ranking and its effect on interviewing practices and medical student outcomes, the leaders of EM programs were surveyed regarding their experiences in both generating and utilizing the SLOE. Methods Individuals on the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) and Clerkship Directors in Emergency Medicine (CDEM) Academy listservs were anonymously surveyed from March 21-30, 2015, with 18 questions in multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blank formats. Results There were 99 respondents. Only 39 respondents (39%) reported adhering strictly to SLOE guidelines by evenly placing their students into thirds (top, middle, lower) on the SLOE GA. Most respondents interviewed individuals ranked in the lower third. Programs adhering strictly to ranking guidelines were more likely to interview students in the lower third than those adhering loosely or not at all. There was no relationship between a program's self-reported adherence to the SLOE ranking guidelines and the number of unmatched students in EM during the 2014 and 2015 academic years. Conclusion Many SLOE writers do not strictly adhere to CORD's SLOE writing guidelines when using the GA ranking, due to the fear of adversely impacting an applicant's ability to successfully match into EM. This calls into question the validity of the SLOE as it is currently used. However, this study suggests that adhering to recommended SLOE ranking guidelines is unlikely to substantially increase the risk that students will fail to match. If more evaluators were to adhere to the guidelines, the SLOE could become the valid evaluation instrument that graduate medical education has long been pursuing.

Study objective Online educational resources such as blogs are increasingly used for education by emergency medicine clinicians. The Social Media Index was developed to quantify their relative impact. The Medical Education Translational Resources: Indicators of Quality (METRIQ) study was conducted in part to determine the association between the Social Media Index score and quality as measured by gestalt and previously derived quality instruments. Methods Ten blogs were randomly selected from a list of emergency medicine and critical care Web sites. The 2 most recent clinically oriented blog posts published on these blogs were evaluated with gestalt, the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources (ALiEM AIR) score, and the METRIQ-8 score. Volunteer raters (including medical students, emergency medicine residents, and emergency medicine attending physicians) were identified with a multimodal recruitment methodology. The Social Media Index was calculated in February 2016, November 2016, April 2017, and December 2017. Pearson's correlations were calculated between the Social Media Index and the average rater gestalt, ALiEM AIR score, and METRIQ-8 score. Results A total of 309 of 330 raters completed all ratings (93.6%). The Social Media Index correlated moderately to strongly with the mean rater gestalt ratings (range 0.69 to 0.76) and moderately with the mean rater ALiEM AIR score (range 0.55 to 0.61) and METRIQ-8 score (range 0.53 to 0.57) during the month of the blog post's selection and for 2 years after. Conclusion The Social Media Index's correlation with multiple quality evaluation instruments over time supports the hypothesis that it is associated with overall Web site quality. It can play a role in guiding individuals to high-quality resources that can be reviewed with critical appraisal techniques.

Study objective Open educational resources such as blogs are increasingly used for medical education. Gestalt is generally the evaluation method used for these resources; however, little information has been published on it. We aim to evaluate the reliability of gestalt in the assessment of emergency medicine blogs. Methods We identified 60 English-language emergency medicine Web sites that posted clinically oriented blogs between January 1, 2016, and February 24, 2016. Ten Web sites were selected with a random-number generator. Medical students, emergency medicine residents, and emergency medicine attending physicians evaluated the 2 most recent clinical blog posts from each site for quality, using a 7-point Likert scale. The mean gestalt scores of each blog post were compared between groups with Pearson's correlations. Single and average measure intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated within groups. A generalizability study evaluated variance within gestalt and a decision study calculated the number of raters required to reliably (>0.8) estimate quality. Results One hundred twenty-one medical students, 88 residents, and 100 attending physicians (93.6% of enrolled participants) evaluated all 20 blog posts. Single-measure intraclass correlation coefficients within groups were fair to poor (0.36 to 0.40). Average-measure intraclass correlation coefficients were more reliable (0.811 to 0.840). Mean gestalt ratings by attending physicians correlated strongly with those by medical students (r=0.92) and residents (r=0.99). The generalizability coefficient was 0.91 for the complete data set. The decision study found that 42 gestalt ratings were required to reliably evaluate quality (>0.8). Conclusion The mean gestalt quality ratings of blog posts between medical students, residents, and attending physicians correlate strongly, but individual ratings are unreliable. With sufficient raters, mean gestalt ratings provide a community standard for assessment.

IntroductionCompassionate patient care has been associated with improved clinical outcomes for patients. However, current evidence suggests that healthcare is experiencing a compassion crisis, with physicians frequently overlooking opportunities to treat patients with compassion. Although there is evidence that compassionate care can be enhanced through training interventions, it is currently unclear what specific skills and behaviours ought to be taught and how best to transfer this information to the learner. The objectives of this systematic review are to collate the world’s literature on compassion training to determine (1) the specific skills and behaviours that should be taught (curriculum), and (2) the methods of training that are most effective at improving compassionate patient care.Methods and analysisWe will perform a qualitative systematic review of studies aimed at improving compassionate patient care among physicians and physicians in training. We will comprehensively search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Additional recommended techniques for systematic reviews of complex evidence will be performed including pursuing selected ‘references of references’, electronic citation tracking and consulting experts in the field. Two investigators will independently review all search results. After identification and inclusion of papers, we will use a standardised form for data extraction. We will use tables to describe the study populations, interventions tested (including specific skill/behaviours taught and training methods used), outcome measures and effects of interventions on outcome measures compared with control groups. Where appropriate, meta-analysis will be used for quantitative analysis of the data.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed systematic review does not require ethical approval since no individual patient-level data will be collected. Results of this study will contribute to the understanding of compassion training and help inform the development of compassion training curricula.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018095040.