Search

Introduction The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) is a three-part series of examinations similar to the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) that osteopathic medical students must pass for medical licensure. Osteopathic students are not required to take the USMLE, but during the residency admission process, many emergency medicine (EM) residency programs will not consider osteopathic applicants who only take the COMLEX-USA. Therefore, we examined program-level characteristics between programs that accept the COMLEX-USA alone for osteopathic applicants and those that prefer the USMLE using free, publicly available online databases and residency program websites. Methods Emergency Medicine Residents' Association (EMRA) Match was the primary database used; however, missing exam preferences were supplemented from Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA) and individual program websites. Program characteristics were compared between EM residencies that accept the COMLEX-USA and those that prefer the USMLE using the Chi-square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney test for interval variables. Results Two hundred sixty of the 278 EM programs in the dataset were included in the analyses. One hundred and seven programs reported preferring the USMLE, while 151 reported accepting the COMLEX-USA alone. Programs differed by the educational environment of the primary training site (p0.001), number of Standardized Letter(s) of Evaluation (SLOE) needed for an interview (p = 0.042), emergency department (ED) shift length (p = 0.021), former American Osteopathic Association accreditation (p0.001), percentage of osteopathic residents (p0.001), annual ED volume (p = 0.001), number of intern positions (p0.001), and number of elective weeks (p = 0.028). Conclusion EM residency programs that reported accepting the COMLEX-USA alone for osteopathic applicants differed from those that prefer the USMLE. Therefore, osteopathic medical students interested in EM should consider these differences when deciding whether to take the USMLE.

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.

OBJECTIVE. This series of patients presented to the emergency department (ED) with abdominal pain, without the respiratory symptoms typical of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and the abdominal radiologist was the first to suggest COVID-19 infection because of findings in the lung bases on CT of the abdomen. CONCLUSION. COVID-19 infection can present primarily with abdominal symptoms, and the abdominal radiologist must suggest the diagnosis when evaluating the lung bases for typical findings.

PURPOSE To evaluate how emergency medicine residency programs perceived and used Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Standardized Video Interview (SVI) total scores and videos during the Electronic Residency Application Service 2018 cycle. METHOD Study 1 (November 2017) used a program director survey to evaluate user reactions to the SVI following the first year of operational use. Study 2 (January 2018) analyzed program usage of SVI video responses using data collected through the AAMC Program Director's Workstation. RESULTS Results from the survey (125/175 programs; 71% response rate) and video usage analysis suggested programs viewed videos out of curiosity and to understand the range of SVI total scores. Programs were more likely to view videos for attendees of U.S. MD-granting medical schools and applicants with higher United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores, but there were no differences by gender or race/ethnicity. More than half of programs that did not use SVI total scores in their selection processes were unsure of how to incorporate them (36/58; 62%) and wanted additional research on utility (33/58; 57%). More than half of programs indicated being at least somewhat likely to use SVI total scores (55/97; 57%) and videos (52/99; 53%) in the future. CONCLUSIONS Program reactions on the utility and ease of use of SVI total scores were mixed. Survey results indicate programs used the SVI cautiously in their selection processes, consistent with AAMC recommendations. Future user surveys will help the AAMC gauge improvements in user acceptance and familiarity with the SVI.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of pneumonia and sepsis have existed for many years with multiple studies suggesting improved patient outcomes. Despite their importance, little is known about variation in emergency department (ED) adherence to these CPGs. Our objectives were to estimate variation in ED adherence across CPGs for pneumonia and sepsis and identify patient, provider, and environmental factors associated with adherence. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study using standard medical record review methods. The population consisted of consecutive adults hospitalized for pneumonia or sepsis (identified by discharge ICD-9 codes) at five Colorado hospitals (two academic, three community) who were admitted to the hospital from the ED and for whom the ED diagnosed or initiated treatment. The outcome measured was ED adherence to the CPG (primary) and in-hospital mortality (secondary). Hierarchical generalized linear models were used for analysis. RESULTS: Among 827 patients, ED care was 57% adherence to CPGs with significant variation in adherence across CPGs (sepsis 50%, pneumonia 64%, p < 0.001). Patients were less likely to receive adherent care if they presented with chief complaints that were associated but not typical of the diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4–0.8), received an ED diagnosis that was not specific to the CPG (associated diagnosis OR = 0.3 [95% CI = 0.2–0.5]; unrelated diagnosis OR = 0.4 [95% CI = 0.2–0.6]) or presented to a community hospital (OR = 0.6,95% CI = 0.4–0.9). ED CPG nonadherence was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.2–4.8). CONCLUSION: Adherence to ED infectious CPGs for pneumonia and sepsis varies significantly across diseases and types of institutions with significant room for improvement, especially in light of a significant association with in-hospital mortality.

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.

Purpose This study examined applicant reactions to the Association of American Medical Colleges Standardized Video Interview (SVI) during its first year of operational use in emergency medicine (EM) residency program selection to identify strategies to improve applicants' SVI experience and attitudes. Method Individuals who self-classified as EM applicants applying in the Electronic Residency Application Service 2018 cycle and who completed the SVI in summer 2017 were invited to participate in 2 surveys. Survey 1, which focused on procedural issues, was administered immediately after SVI completion. Survey 2, which focused on applicants' SVI experience, was administered in fall 2017, after SVI scores were released. Results The response rates for surveys 1 and 2 were 82.3% (2,906/3,532) and 58.7% (2,074/3,532), respectively. Applicant reactions varied by aspect of the SVI studied and their SVI total scores. Most applicants were satisfied with most procedural aspects of the SVI, but most applicants were not satisfied with the SVI overall or with their total SVI scores. About 20% to 30% of applicants had neutral opinions about most aspects of the SVI. Negative reactions to the SVI were stronger for applicants who scored lower on the SVI. Conclusions Applicants had generally negative reactions to the SVI. Most were skeptical of its ability to assess the target competencies and its potential to add value to the selection process. Applicant acceptance and appreciation of the SVI will be critical to the SVI's acceptance by the graduate medical education community.

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.

Background and purpose: Fewer than 1 in 20 patients with acute ischemic stroke are treated with thrombolytic drugs, with threequarters of otherwise eligible patients being excluded secondary to delay in seeking medical treatment. Lack of symptom recognition may contribute to low treatment rates and is an important focus of public health education. The purpose of this study was to determine if an individual’s cumulative number of stroke risk factors correlated with their ability to identify stroke symptoms. Methods: We surveyed adults about their stroke risk factors and knowledge of stroke symptoms at grocery stores and malls in a medium-sized university town in the Midwestern US. Results: In total, 245 adults completed surveys. Self-reported risk factors included high blood pressure (25%), high cholesterol (22%), diabetes (12%), tobacco use (11%), alcohol use (7%), heart disease (7%), and prior stroke (3%). Cumulatively, 56% of respondents had no risk factors, 41% had 1� 3 risk factors, and 4% had 4� risk factors.When administered a six-point stroke symptom knowledge test, respondents with 4� risk factors were significantly less knowledgeable, receiving a mean score of 3.2, compared to those with 1� 3 risk factors, who scored a mean of 4.6. Those with four or more years of college were significantly more knowledgeable than those with only a high-school education, receiving mean scores of 4.6 and 3.9, respectively.There was no association between stroke knowledge and use of a primary care physician. Conclusions: Although it is known that individuals with more risk factors are more likely to have a stroke, in our study these respondents were less able to recognize stroke symptoms compared to respondents with fewer risk factors. Future public stroke awareness campaigns should be targeted toward those most at risk so they learn to recognize stroke symptoms and thus seek treatment in a timely manner.