Search

Introduction: Following resident requests, we created a public metrics dashboard to inform residents of their daily productivity. Our goal was to iteratively improve the dashboard based on resident feedback and to measure the impact of reviewing aggregate data on self-perceived productivity.  Methods: A 10-question anonymous survey was completed by our postgraduate year 1-3 residents. Residents answered questions on the dashboard and rated their own productivity before and after reviewing aggregate peer-comparison data. Using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test we calculated summary statistics for survey questions and compared distributions of pre- and post-test, self-rated productivity scores.  Results: All 43 eligible residents completed the survey (response rate 100%). Thirteen (30%) residents “rarely” or “never” reviewed the dashboard. No respondents felt the dashboard measured their productivity or quality of care “extremely accurately” or “very accurately.” Seven (16%) residents felt “very” or “extremely pressured” to change their practice patterns based on the metrics provided, and 28 (65%) would have preferred private over public feedback. Fifteen residents (35%) changed their self-perceived rank after viewing peer-comparison data, although not significantly in a particular direction (z = 0.71, P = 0.48).  Conclusion: Residents did not view the presented metrics as reflective of their productivity or quality of care. Viewing the dashboard did not lead to statistically significant changes in resident self-perception of productivity. This finding highlights the need for expanding the resident conversation and education on metrics, given their frequent inclusion in attending physician workforce payment and incentive models.

Introduction: The focus of residency training is to ensure that graduates attain a minimum level of skills and knowledge in order to be able to practice independently. While there are multiple formal methods to evaluate a resident, there is a paucity of literature that describes whether programs have residents perform individual self-assessment (ISA) with the development of individualized learning plans (ILP) to better themselves. We sought to investigate the current state of emergency medicine (EM) residency programs using ISA and determine whether these assessments are used to develop an ILP for each resident.Methods: An electronic survey was developed by educators at our institution and sent to all program leaders of United States EM residencies approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. An individualized email request was sent to non-responders. Results were obtained from February–May 2019.Results: Of 240 programs we contacted, 119 (49.5%) completed the survey. Seventy-nine percent of programs reported that they had all residents perform an ISA. These were completed semiannually in 69% of the programs surveyed, annually in 19%, less than annually in 8%, and quarterly or more frequently in 4%. Of those programs requiring a resident ISA, only 21% required that all residents develop an ILP; 79% had only those residents requiring additional help or no residents develop an ILP.Conclusion: Most programs that completed the survey reported having residents complete an individual self-assessment, but there was variation in the areas assessed. The majority of programs had only lower performing, or no residents, develop an ILP based on this.

Physician assistants (PA) are an important part of emergency department healthcare delivery and are increasingly seeking specialty-specific postgraduate training. Our goal was to pilot the implementation of a PA postgraduate program within an existing physician residency program and produce emergency medicine-PA (EM-PA) graduates of comparable skill to their physician counterparts who have received the equivalent length of EM residency training to date (evaluated at the end of first year of EM training).The curriculum was based on the Society for Emergency Medicine Physician Assistants (SEMPA) recommendations with a special focus on side-by-side training with EM resident physicians. In reviewing the program, the authors examined faculty evaluations, as well as procedure and ultrasound experience that the trainees received. We found comparable evaluations between first-year EM-PA and physician trainee cohorts. This program serves as a pilot study to demonstrate the feasibility of collocating clinical and didactic programming for physicians and EM-PAs during their postgraduate training. This brief innovation report outlines the logistics of the clinical and didactic curriculum and provides a summary of outcomes evaluated.

Emergency medicine residency programs around the country develop didactic conferences to prepare residents for board exams and independent practice. To our knowledge, there is not currently an evidence-based set of guidelines for programs to follow to ensure maximal benefit of didactics for learners. This paper offers expert guidelines for didactic instruction from members of the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Best Practices Subcommittee, based on best available evidence. Programs can use these recommendations to further optimize their resident conference structure and content. Recommendations in this manuscript include best practices in formatting didactics, selection of facilitators and instructors, and duration of individual sessions. Authors also recommend following the Model of Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine when developing content, while incorporating sessions dedicated to morbidity and mortality, research methodology, journal article review, administration, wellness, and professionalism.

Emergency medicine residency programs around the country develop didactic conferences to prepare residents for board exams and independent practice. To our knowledge, there is not currently an evidence-based set of guidelines for programs to follow to ensure maximal benefit of didactics for learners. This paper offers expert guidelines for didactic instruction from members of the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Best Practices Subcommittee, based on best available evidence. Programs can use these recommendations to further optimize their resident conference structure and content. Recommendations in this manuscript include best practices in formatting didactics, selection of facilitators and instructors, and duration of individual sessions. Authors also recommend following the Model of Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine when developing content, while incorporating sessions dedicated to morbidity and mortality, research methodology, journal article review, administration, wellness, and professionalism.

Introduction: In 2012 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education implemented trainee milestones as tools for clinical competency committees to use for evaluation, feedback, remediation, and promotion purposes. Prior to this innovation, there has not been an adequate method to capture, organize, and graphically illustrate the evaluations by attendings in a simple, fast and organized fashion.Methods: We created a novel, web-based, mobile-friendly evaluation tool to help fill this identified gap. The survey-based program creates a milestone-based evaluation, takes only a few minutes to complete, and easily collates the results in a graphic format creating an individualized “dashboard.” The dashboard is then used by both trainees and their evaluators as a feedback platform.Results: With the implementation of the dashboard, educational leadership has noted an increase in the number of submitted evaluations of residents and the amount of face-to-face feedback given by attendings to residents. A post-implementation survey of the residents revealed that they found the dashboard-provided feedback more helpful than prior modes of feedback, although the number of evaluations was still too few.Conclusion: The use of our feedback dashboard is useful to multiple targeted end-users, including general faculty evaluators, program leadership, and the residents themselves for gathering formative feedback that is specific and timely. This tool is adaptable and likely generalizable to other residency programs and specialties.

Introduction: In 2012 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced the Next Accreditation System (NAS), which implemented milestones to assess the competency of residents and fellows. While attending evaluation and feedback is crucial for resident development, perhaps equally important is a resident’s self-assessment. If a resident does not accurately self-assess, clinical and professional progress may be compromised. The objective of our study was to compare emergency medicine (EM) resident milestone evaluation by EM faculty with the same resident’s self-assessment.  Methods: This is an observational, cross-sectional study that was performed at an academic, four-year EM residency program. Twenty-five randomly chosen residents completed milestone self-assessment using eight ACGME sub-competencies deemed by residency leadership as representative of core EM principles. These residents were also evaluated by 20 faculty members. The milestone levels were evaluated on a nine-point scale. We calculated the average difference between resident self-ratings and faculty ratings, and used sample t-tests to determine statistical significance of the difference in scores.Results: Eighteen residents evaluated themselves. Each resident was assessed by an average of 16 attendings (min=10, max=20). Residents gave themselves statistically significant higher milestone ratings than attendings did for each sub-competency examined (p

Physician assistants (PA) are an important part of emergency department healthcare delivery and are increasingly seeking specialty-specific postgraduate training. Our goal was to pilot the implementation of a PA postgraduate program within an existing physician residency program and produce emergency medicine-PA (EM-PA) graduates of comparable skill to their physician counterparts who have received the equivalent length of EM residency training to date (evaluated at the end of first year of EM training).The curriculum was based on the Society for Emergency Medicine Physician Assistants (SEMPA) recommendations with a special focus on side-by-side training with EM resident physicians. In reviewing the program, the authors examined faculty evaluations, as well as procedure and ultrasound experience that the trainees received. We found comparable evaluations between first-year EM-PA and physician trainee cohorts. This program serves as a pilot study to demonstrate the feasibility of collocating clinical and didactic programming for physicians and EM-PAs during their postgraduate training. This brief innovation report outlines the logistics of the clinical and didactic curriculum and provides a summary of outcomes evaluated.

Introduction: The focus of residency training is to ensure that graduates attain a minimum level of skills and knowledge in order to be able to practice independently. While there are multiple formal methods to evaluate a resident, there is a paucity of literature that describes whether programs have residents perform individual self-assessment (ISA) with the development of individualized learning plans (ILP) to better themselves. We sought to investigate the current state of emergency medicine (EM) residency programs using ISA and determine whether these assessments are used to develop an ILP for each resident., Methods: An electronic survey was developed by educators at our institution and sent to all program leaders of United States EM residencies approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. An individualized email request was sent to non-responders. Results were obtained from February-May 2019., Results: Of 240 programs we contacted, 119 (49.5%) completed the survey. Seventy-nine percent of programs reported that they had all residents perform an ISA. These were completed semiannually in 69% of the programs surveyed, annually in 19%, less than annually in 8%, and quarterly or more frequently in 4%. Of those programs requiring a resident ISA, only 21% required that all residents develop an ILP; 79% had only those residents requiring additional help or no residents develop an ILP., Conclusion: Most programs that completed the survey reported having residents complete an individual self-assessment, but there was variation in the areas assessed. The majority of programs had only lower performing, or no residents, develop an ILP based on this.

Background: Women with unilateral breast carcinoma are at increased risk for developing contralateral breast carcinoma (CBC). The authors sought to identify predictors of malignant or moderate to high-risk histologic findings in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) specimens, and to determine the efficacy of CPM., Methods: The authors performed a retrospective review of 239 patients with unilateral early-stage breast carcinoma who underwent CPM. The number of CBCs expected if the contralateral breast had been left intact was calculated based on CBC rates observed in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and on life-table analysis by family history., Results: In the current study, 11 patients (4.6%) had occult contralateral malignancies (4 invasive carcinomas and 7 ductal carcinomas in situ) and 44 (18.4%) patients had moderate to high-risk pathology (8 lobular carcinoma in situ, 11 atypical lobular hyperplasia, 25 atypical ductal hyperplasia). At 1846 patient-years of follow-up, only 1 patient (0.4%) developed a new CBC compared with 11 expected cancers based on SEER data. One CBC was observed among 140 patients with a family history of breast carcinoma, compared with 16 expected cancers based on life-table analysis adjusted for adjuvant therapy. The determinants of significant findings at CPM were invasive lobular histology, estrogen and progesterone receptor positivity, additional ipsilateral moderate to high-risk pathology, and age > 40 years at cancer diagnosis., Conclusions: CPM was associated with a low risk of subsequent development of breast carcinoma. Evaluation of histologic findings in the ipsilateral breast may help to predict the likelihood of significant disease in the contralateral breast and assist in risk stratification.