Search

Faculty development (FD) encompasses structured programming that aims to enhance educator knowledge, skill, and behavior. No uniform framework for faculty development exists, and academic institutions vary in their faculty development programming, ability to overcome barriers, resource utilization, and achievement of consistent outcomes. The authors aimed to assess current FD needs among emergency medicine educators from six geographically and clinically distinct academic institutions to inform overall faculty development advancement in emergency medicine (EM). This cross-sectional study assessed FD needs among EM educators. A survey was developed, piloted, and distributed to faculty via each academic institution's internal e-mail listserv. Respondents were asked to rate their comfort level with and interest in several domains of FD. Respondents were also asked to identify their previous experience, satisfaction with the FD they have received, and barriers to receiving FD. Across six sites, 136/471 faculty completed the survey in late 2020 (response rate of 29%): 69.1% of respondents reported being satisfied overall with the FD they have participated in, and 50.7% reported being satisfied with education FD specifically. Faculty report higher comfort levels and interest in several domains when satisfied with the education-specific FD they have received compared with those who report not being satisfied. EM faculty report generally high satisfaction with the overall faculty development they have received, although only half express satisfaction with their education-related faculty development. Faculty developers in EM may incorporate these results to inform future faculty development programs and frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patient satisfaction is one measure of the quality of emergency department (ED) care. The impact of survey delivery method on patient satisfaction in the ED remains unknown. Objective We hypothesized that self-administered surveys in the ED would yield a higher response rate and different satisfaction compared to mailed surveys. Methods This observational study was conducted during a 2-month period in an urban, tertiary-care, university-based ED. Eligible patients were randomized to either complete an on-site satisfaction survey in the ED at discharge or to complete an identical survey mailed 1 week after discharge. The primary outcome was the reported overall satisfaction of on-site vs. mail-out surveys. Satisfaction was measured using Likert-type scales and dichotomized outcomes were compared using a χ 2 test and logistic regression. Results Two hundred and forty-two of 457 eligible patients randomized to the on-site group and 275 of 1152 patients in the mail-out group completed a survey (53% vs. 24%; p < 0.001). Compared with the mail-out group, on-site subjects reported higher overall satisfaction (79.6% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.006), significantly higher satisfaction with their nurses' ( p < 0.001) and doctors' listening skills ( p < 0.001), and were more likely to recommend this ED to friends or family (71.4%, vs. 56.6%; p = 0.001). Conclusions We found that patients who completed satisfaction surveys in the ED reported higher satisfaction than those who received mailed surveys. In addition, measuring patient satisfaction by self-administered on-site surveys at the time of discharge from the ED yields a significantly higher response rate than measuring satisfaction using mailed surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In the application process for Emergency Medicine (EM) residencies, the tacit start date for offering interviews has been November 1, the day the Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPEs) are released. We hypothesized that even before November 1, a large number of our applicants had already received “early” invitations to interview this year. We anonymously surveyed our program’s EM interviewees with a survey that included two questions: “Did you receive any interview invitations before November 1?” and “Please list the programs that offered you interview invitations before November 1.” Of 82 interviewees, 73 completed the survey (89%). Seventy-seven percent of respondents (56/73) were offered an interview before November 1. At least 59 of the 135 (44%) EM residencies send early invitations. The majority of our interviewees did receive early invitations. It cannot be ignored that at least 59 programs offer early invitations. This information has implications both for student advisors and residency programs. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]