Search

BACKGROUND: The Association of American Medical Colleges instituted a standardized video interview (SVI) for all applicants to emergency medicine (EM). It is unclear how the SVI affects a faculty reviewer's decision on likelihood to invite an applicant (LTI) for an interview. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine whether the SVI affects the LTI. METHODS: Nine Accreditation Council of Graduate Medication Education (ACGME)‐accredited EM residency programs participated in this prospective, observational study. LTI was defined on a 5‐point Likert scale as follows: 1 = definitely not invite, 2 = likely not invite, 3 = might invite, 4 = probably invite, 5 = definitely invite. LTI was recorded at three instances during each review: 1) after typical screening (blinded to the SVI), 2) after unblinding to the SVI score, and 3) after viewing the SVI video. RESULTS: Seventeen reviewers at nine ACGME‐accredited residency programs participated. We reviewed 2,219 applications representing 1,424 unique applicants. After unblinding the SVI score, LTI did not change in 2,065 (93.1%), increased in 85 (3.8%) and decreased in 69 (3.1%; p = 0.22). In subgroup analyses, the effect of the SVI on LTI was unchanged by United States Medical Licensing Examination score. However, when examining subgroups of SVI scores, the percentage of applicants in whom the SVI score changed the LTI was significantly different in those that scored in the lower and upper subgroups (p

The COVID-19 pandemic has required a substantial change to the approach used for traditional, in-person continuing professional development (CPD) conferences. Running a virtual CPD conference will necessitate consideration of digital platforms and conversion of large group and small group sessions, abstract presentations, and networking events to a digital medium. This paper will discuss these challenges and present strategies to address them for CPD conference planning in the era of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required a substantial change to the approach used for traditional, in-person continuing professional development (CPD) conferences. Running a virtual CPD conference will necessitate consideration of digital platforms and conversion of large group and small group sessions, abstract presentations, and networking events to a digital medium. This paper will discuss these challenges and present strategies to address them for CPD conference planning in the era of COVID-19.

It is important that residency programs identify trainees who progress appropriately, as well as identify residents who fail to achieve educational milestones as expected so they may be remediated. The process of remediation varies greatly across training programs, due in part to the lack of standardized definitions for good standing, remediation, probation, and termination. The purpose of this educational advancement is to propose a clear remediation framework including definitions, management processes, documentation expectations and appropriate notifications. Informal remediation is initiated when a resident’s performance is deficient in one or more of the outcomes-based milestones established by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but not significant enough to trigger formal remediation. Formal remediation occurs when deficiencies are significant enough to warrant formal documentation because informal remediation failed or because issues are substantial. The process includes documentation in the resident’s file and notification of the graduate medical education office; however, the documentation is not disclosed if the resident successfully remediates. Probation is initiated when a resident is unsuccessful in meeting the terms of formal remediation or if initial problems are significant enough to warrant immediate probation. The process is similar to formal remediation but also includes documentation extending to the final verification of training and employment letters. Termination involves other stakeholders and occurs when a resident is unsuccessful in meeting the terms of probation or if initial problems are significant enough to warrant immediate termination. [West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(1)110-113.]

Matching into emergency medicine (EM) is getting progressively more competitive. Applicants must therefore prepare for the possibility of not matching and, accordingly, be ready to participate in the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP). In this article, we elaborate on the SOAP and the options for applicants who fail to match during Match Week. Alternative courses of action include applying for a preliminary year, matching into a categorical residency program, or aiming to secure EM spots outside the Match through the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, and American Association of Medical Colleges.

Author(s): Chung, Arlene S.; Shah, Kaushal H.; Bond, Michael; Ardolic, Brahim; Husain, Abbas; Li, Ida; Cygan, Lukasz; Caputo, William; Shoenberger, Jan; van Dermark, Jeff; Bronner, Jonathan; Weizberg, Moshe | Abstract: Introduction: In 2017, all medical students applying for residency in emergency medicine (EM) were required to participate in the Standardized Video Interview (SVI). The SVI is a video-recorded, uni-directional interview consisting of six questions designed to assess interpersonal and communication skills and professionalism. It is unclear whether this simulated interview is an accurate representation of an applicant’s competencies that are often evaluated during the in-person interview. Objective: The goal of this study was to determine whether the SVI score correlates with a traditional in-person interview score.Methods: Six geographically and demographically diverse EM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education participated in this prospective observational study. Common demographic data for each applicant were obtained through an Electronic Residency Application Service export function prior to the start of any scheduled traditional interviews (TI). On each TI day, one interviewer blinded to all applicant data, including SVI score, rated the applicant on a five-point scale. A convenience sample of applicants was enrolled based on random assignment to the blinded interviewer. We studied the correlation between SVI score and TI score.Results: We included 321 unique applicants in the final analysis. Linear regression analysis of the SVI score against the TI score demonstrated a small positive linear correlation with an r coefficient of +0.13 (p=0.02). This correlation remained across all SVI score subgroups (p = 0.03).Conclusion: Our study suggests that there is a small positive linear correlation between the SVI score and performance during the TI.

Early identification and successful remediation of unachieved emergency medicine (EM) milestones are challenging for program directors. Residents who fail to achieve milestones in the expected time frame will have varied educational needs to course correct, dependent on the year of training, as well as the specific deficiencies to resolve. Experts from the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (CORD-EM) Remediation Task Force (RTF) collaborated with the objective to create tools for identifying and remediating residents with deficiencies in patient care milestones (PCMs).

Author(s): Egan, Daniel J.; Husain, Abbas; Bond, Michael C.; Caputo, William; Cygan, Lukasz; VanDermark, Jeff; Shoenberger, Jan M.; Li, Ida; Krauss, William; Bronner, Jonathan; White, Melissa; Chung, Arlene S.; Shah, Kaushal H.; Taylor, Todd; Silver, Matthew; Ardolic, Brahim; Weizberg, Moshe | Abstract: Introduction: In 2017, the Standardized Video Interview (SVI) was required for applicants to emergency medicine (EM). The SVI contains six questions highlighting professionalism and interpersonal communication skills. The responses were scored (6-30). As it is a new metric, no information is available on correlation between SVI scores and other application data. This study was to determine if a correlation exists between applicants’ United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and SVI scores. We hypothesized that numeric USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores would not correlate with the SVI score, but that performance on the Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) portion may correlate with the SVI since both test communication skills. Methods: Nine EM residency sites participated in the study with data exported from an Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS®) report. All applicants with both SVI and USMLE scores were included. We studied the correlation between SVI scores and USMLE scores. Predetermined subgroup analysis was performed based on applicants’ USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores as follows: (≥ 200, 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, g260). We used linear regression, the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test for statistical analyses. Results: 1,325 applicants had both Step 1 and SVI scores available, with no correlation between the overall scores (p=0.58) and no correlation between the scores across all Step 1 score ranges, (p=0.29). Both Step 2 CK and SVI scores were available for 1,275 applicants, with no correlation between the overall scores (p=0.56) and no correlation across all ranges, (p=0.10). The USMLE Step 2 CS and SVI scores were available for 1,000 applicants. Four applicants failed the CS test without any correlation to the SVI score (p=0.08). Conclusion: We found no correlation between the scores on any portion of the USMLE and the SVI; therefore, the SVI provides new information to application screeners.

Background Electrocardiography findings in patients with pulmonary embolism have been investigated since 1935. As medicine has evolved, more effective modalities have surpassed the electrocardiogram in diagnostic utility. Despite the advent of these other modalities, the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism remains elusive and the prognosis is variable amongst each clinical presentation of its pathology. Case report and literature review After presenting a case of a resolving S1Q3T3 in subsequent electrocardiogram findings of a patient with pulmonary embolism, this literature review will provide information on a 21-point electrocardiogram scoring system that helps the emergency physician stratify the risk of a patient with an acute presentation of pulmonary embolism. Why should emergency care staff be aware of this? Given the time-sensitive nature of diagnosis and appropriate treatment, Electrocardiogram continues to be a tool in the assessment of patients with a clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism. Based on the information provided, 21-point electrocardiogram score has been shown to have strong usefulness in assessing prognosis of patients presenting with acute pulmonary embolism.

Background Residents in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited emergency medicine (EM) residencies were assessed on 23 educational milestones to capture their progression from medical student level (Level 1) to that of an EM attending physician (Level 5). Level 1 was conceptualized to be at the level of an incoming postgraduate year (PGY)-1 resident; however, this has not been confirmed. Objectives Our primary objective in this study was to assess incoming PGY-1 residents to determine what percentage achieved Level 1 for the 8 emergency department (ED) patient care–based milestones (PC 1–8), as assessed by faculty. Secondary objectives involved assessing what percentage of residents had achieved Level 1 as assessed by themselves, and finally, we calculated the absolute differences between self- and faculty assessments. Methods Incoming PGY-1 residents at 4 EM residencies were assessed by faculty and themselves during their first month of residency. Performance anchors were adapted from ACGME milestones. Results Forty-one residents from 4 programs were included. The percentage of residents who achieved Level 1 for each subcompetency on faculty assessment ranged from 20% to 73%, and on self-assessment from 34% to 92%. The majority did not achieve Level 1 on faculty assessment of milestones PC-2, PC-3, PC-5a, and PC-6, and on self-assessment of PC-3 and PC-5a. Self-assessment was higher than faculty assessment for PC-2, PC-5b, and PC-6. Conclusions Less than 75% of PGY-1 residents achieved Level 1 for ED care-based milestones. The majority did not achieve Level 1 on 4 milestones. Self-assessments were higher than faculty assessments for several milestones.

Author(s): Silverberg, Mark; Weizberg, Moshe; Murano, Tiffany; Smith, Jessica L.; Burkhardt, John C.; Santen, Sally A. | Abstract: Introduction: The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of remediation, competency domains for remediation, the length, and success rates of remediation in emergency medicine (EM).Methods: We developed the survey in SurveymonkeyTM with attention to content and response process validity. EM program directors responded how many residents had been placed on remediation in the last three years. Details regarding the remediation were collected including indication, length and success. We reported descriptive data and estimated a multinomial logistic regression model. Results: We obtained 126/158 responses (79.7%). Ninety percent of programs had at least one resident on remediation in the last three years. The prevalence of remediation was 4.4%. Indications for remediation ranged from difficulties with one core competency to all six competencies (mean 1.9). The most common were medical knowledge (MK) (63.1% of residents), patient care (46.6%) and professionalism (31.5%). Mean length of remediation was eight months (range 1-36 months). Successful remediation was 59.9% of remediated residents; 31.3% reported ongoing remediation. In 8.7%, remediation was deemed “unsuccessful.” Training year at time of identification for remediation (post-graduate year [PGY] 1), longer time spent in remediation, and concerns with practice-based learning (PBLI) and professionalism were found to have statistically significant association with unsuccessful remediation. Conclusion: Remediation in EM residencies is common, with the most common areas being MK and patient care. The majority of residents are successfully remediated. PGY level, length of time spent in remediation, and the remediation of the competencies of PBLI and professionalism were associated with unsuccessful remediation.

Introduction: Board scores are an important aspect of an emergency medicine (EM) residency application. Residency directors use these standardized tests to objectively evaluate an applicant’s potential and help decide whether to interview a candidate. While allopathic (MD) students take the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), osteopathic (DO) students take the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX). It is difficult to compare these scores. Previous literature proposed an equation to predict USMLE based on COMLEX. Recent analyses suggested this may no longer be accurate. DO students applying to allopathic programs frequently ask whether they should take USMLE to overcome this potential disadvantage. The objective of the study is to compare the likelihood to match of DO applicants who reported USMLE to those who did not, and to clarify how important program directors consider it is whether or not an osteopathic applicant reported a USMLE score. Methods: We conducted a review of Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) data for 2010-2011 in conjunction with a survey of EM residency programs. We reviewed the number of allopathic and osteopathic applicants, the number of osteopathic applicants who reported a USMLE score, and the percentage of successful match. We compared the percentage of osteopathic applicants who reported a USMLE score who matched compared to those who did not report USMLE. We also surveyed allopathic EM residency programs to understand how important it is that osteopathic (DO) students take USMLE. Results: There were 1,482 MD students ranked EM programs; 1,277 (86%, 95% CI 84.3-87.9) matched. There were 350 DO students ranked EM programs; 181 (52%, 95% CI 46.4-57.0) matched (difference=34%, 95% CI 29.8-39.0, p

Objectives Multisource feedback (MSF) has potential value in learner assessment, but has not been broadly implemented nor studied in emergency medicine (EM). This study aimed to adapt existing MSF instruments for emergency department implementation, measure feasibility, and collect initial validity evidence to support score interpretation for learner assessment. Methods Residents from eight U.S. EM residency programs completed a self-assessment and were assessed by eight physicians, eight nonphysician colleagues, and 25 patients using unique instruments. Instruments included a five-point rating scale to assess interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, and patient care. MSF feasibility was measured by percentage of residents who collected the target number of instruments. To develop internal structure validity evidence, Cronbach's alpha was calculated as a measure of internal consistency. Results A total of 125 residents collected a mean of 7.0 physician assessments (n = 752), 6.7 nonphysician assessments (n = 775), and 17.8 patient assessments (n = 2,100) with respective response rates of 67.2, 75.2, and 77.5%. Cronbach's alpha values for physicians, nonphysicians, patients, and self were 0.97, 0.97, 0.96, and 0.96, respectively. Conclusions This study demonstrated that MSF implementation is feasible, although challenging. The tool and its scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency. EM educators may find the adaptation process and tools applicable to their learners.

Background: Thorough and accurate documentation in the medical record is important, and documentation skills should be an integral component of emergency medicine (EM) residency training. Study Objective: We sought to study the documentation skills of EM residents as they relate to emergency department (ED) reimbursement. Methods: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study. We reviewed all charts of patients presenting to the adult ED during a 2-week period. We compared three groups: patients seen primarily by an EM resident, patients seen primarily by a physician assistant (PA), and patients seen primarily by an attending emergency physician. Outcome measures were the incidence of downcodes and dollars lost to downcodes in all groups. Results: There were 212 patients in the resident group, 683 patients in the PA group, and 437 patients in the attending group. There were 12 downcodes (5.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.96–9.70) in the resident group, 10 downcodes (1.5%, 95% CI 0.70–2.68) in the PA group, and 17 downcodes (3.9%, 95% CI 2.28–6.14) in the attending group ( p = 0.002). The mean dollar lost per patient seen in the resident group was $3.21 (95% CI 1.41–5.00); $0.91 (95% CI 0.33–1.49) in the PA group; and $2.23 (95% CI 1.17–3.28) in the attending group ( p = 0.002). Conclusion: Charts documented primarily by EM residents were more likely to be downcoded than charts documented primarily by PAs or ED attendings. This downcode rate resulted in a greater loss of revenue in the resident group. We believe this represents an area for improvement in EM residency education.

Objectives Emergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PDs) nationwide place residents on remediation and probation. However, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the EM PDs have not defined these terms, and individual institutions must set guidelines defining a change in resident status from good standing to remediation or probation. The primary objective of this study was to determine if EM PDs follow a common process to guide actions when residents are placed on remediation and probation. Methods An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to EM PDs via e-mail using SurveyMonkey to determine the current practice followed after residents are placed on remediation or probation. The survey queried four designations: informal remediation, formal remediation, informal probation, and formal probation. These designations were compared for deficits in the domains of medical knowledge (MK) and non-MK remediation. The survey asked what process for designation exists and what actions are triggered, specifically if documentation is placed in a resident's file, if the graduate medical education (GME) office is notified, if faculty are informed, or if resident privileges are limited. Descriptive data are reported. Results Eighty-one of 160 PDs responded. An official policy on remediation and/or probation was reported by 41 (50.6%) programs. The status of informal remediation is used by 73 (90.1%), 80 (98.8%) have formal remediation, 40 (49.4%) have informal probation, and 79 (97.5%) have formal probation. There was great variation among PDs in the management and definition of remediation and probation. Between 81 and 86% of programs place an official letter into the resident's file regarding formal remediation and probation. However, only about 50% notify the GME office when a resident is placed on formal remediation. There were no statistical differences between MK and non-MK remediation practices. Conclusions There is significant variation among EM programs regarding the process of remediation and probation. The definition of these terms and the actions triggered are variable across programs. Based on these findings, suggestions toward a standardized approach for remediation and probation in GME programs are provided.

Background For graduating emergency medicine (EM) residents, little information exists as to what attributes department chairs are seeking in hiring new attendings. Study Objectives: To determine which qualities academic EM department chairs are looking for when hiring a new physician directly out of residency or fellowship. Methods An anonymous 15-item Web-based survey was sent to the department chairs of all accredited civilian EM residency programs in March of 2011. The questions assessed the desirability of different candidate attributes and the difficulty in recruiting EM-trained physicians. Respondents were also asked to give the current number of available job openings. Results Fifty-five percent of eligible department chairs responded. On a 5-point scale, the most important parts of a candidate's application were the interview (4.8 ± 0.4), another employee's recommendation (4.7 ± 0.5), and the program director's recommendation (4.5 ± 0.7). The single most important attribute possessed by a candidate was identified as “Ability to work in a team,” with 58% of respondents listing it as their top choice. Advanced training in ultrasound was listed as the most sought-after fellowship by 55% of the chairs. Overall, department chairs did not have a difficult time in recruiting EM-trained physicians, with 56% of respondents stating that they had no current job openings. Conclusion How a physician relates to others was consistently rated as the most important part of the candidate's application. However, finding a job in academic EM is difficult, with graduates having limited job prospects.

Anorectal abscesses are a common presentation to the Emergency Department, but are frequently misdiagnosed. We report a patient in whom penile discharge was the presenting symptom of an ischiorectal abscess. A 42-year-old man presented with scrotal pain, swelling, and penile discharge. The genitourinary examination revealed a tender scrotum, and a fluctuant mass was identified on digital rectal examination. Computed tomography (CT) scan revealed an ischiorectal abscess with extension into the corpus cavernosum. We believe our patient's penile discharge was a manifestation of this abscess extension. Penile discharge is typically suggestive of sexually transmitted infections. Although rare, perirectal abscess should be considered in the differential diagnosis of penile discharge. A thorough digital rectal examination should be performed seeking the presence of mass or fluctuance.