Search

Introduction: Program signaling (PS), which enables residency applicants to signal their preference for a specific program, was introduced in emergency medicine (EM) in the 2022–2023 residency application cycle. In this study we evaluated EM program directors’ (PD) utilization of PS in application review and ranking. This study also explores the relationship between program characteristics and number of signals received as well as the relative importance and utilization of signals related to the number of signals received.Methods: This is an institutional review board-approved, cross-sectional study of PDs at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited EM residency programs. We used descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of residency programs and practices around PS. Measures of central tendency and dispersion summarized continuous variables. We used chi-square analysis or the Fisher exact test for comparisons between groups for categorical variables. Comparisons for continuous variables were made using the t-test for independent samples or analysis of variance.Results: The response rate was 41% (n = 113/277 EM programs). Most programs participated in PS(n = 261/277 EM programs, 94.2%). Mean number of signals received was 60 (range 2–203). Signals received varied based on program characteristics including geographic location and program type, duration, environment, and longevity. Most used PS in holistic review (52.2%), but other uses varied by proportion of applications that were signaled. The importance of PS in application review (mean 2.9; 1–5scale,1= not important, 5 = extremely important) and rank list preparation (2.1) was relatively low compared to other application elements such as standardized letters of evaluation (4.97 for review, 4.90 for ranking).Conclusion: The study provides insights into PS utilization in EM’s inaugural year. We have identified patterns of signal use based on program characteristics and number of signals received that can inform signal allocation and utilization on an individual applicant and program level. A more nuanced understanding of signal use can provide valuable insight as the specialty of EM grapples with fluctuations in its applicant numbers and shifting demographics of its applicant pool.

Background: Academic emergency medicine (EM) communities have viewed anonymous online communities (AOC) such as Reddit or specialty-specific “applicant spreadsheets” as poor advising resources. Despite this, robust EM AOCs exist, with large user bases and heavy readership. Insights about applicants’ authentic experiences can be critical for applicants and program leadership decision-making. To date, there are no EM studies to qualitatively assess EM AOC narratives during the application cycle. Our goal was to perform a qualitative analysis of students’ EM program experiences through a publicly available AOC.Methods: This was a qualitative analysis of a publicly available, time-stamped, user-locked AOC dataset: “Official 2020–2021 Emergency Medicine Applicant Spreadsheet.” We extracted and then de-identified all data from selected sub-sheets entitled “Virtual Interview Impressions” and “Rotation Impressions.” Four investigators used constant comparative method to analyze the data inductively, and they subsequently met to generate common themes discussed by students. Preliminary thematic analysis was conducted on a random sample of 37/183 (20%) independent narratives to create the initial codebook. This was used and updated iteratively to analyze the entire narrative set consisting of 841 discrete statements. Finally, two unique codes were created to distinguish whether the identified sub-themes, or program attributes, were likely “modifiable” or “non-modifiable.”Results: We identified six major themes: living and working conditions; interpersonal relationships; learning experiences, postgraduate readiness, and online/virtual supplements. Common sub-themes included patient population (13%); resident personality (7%); program leadership personality (7%); relationship with faculty/leadership (6%); geography (4%); practice setting (4%); program reputation (4%), and postgraduate year-3 experiences (4%). Modifiable sub-themes outnumbered non-modifiable sub-themes, 60.7% to 39.3%.Conclusion: In this analysis of selected medical students’ narratives in an AOC, the majority of identified themes represented topics that may serve as external feedback for EM residency programs and their clerkships. Selective use of AOCs may set a precedent for future program assessments by applicants and inform program leadership of important programmatic elements in the eyes of applicants. It elucidates important themes in their interactions or learning experiences with programs and creates opportunities for learner-centric program improvement.

Learning Objectives: Assess EM residency program leadership preferences/concerns for the 2021-22 residency interview cycle.Background: The Coalition for Physician Accountability recommended 2021-2022 residency interviews be held virtually. Studies assessing EM program leadership preferences for virtual versus in person interviews have been limited.Objective: Assess EM residency program leadership preferences/concerns for the 2021-2022 residency interview cycle.Methods: Via CORD’s Program Director and Faculty Community, EM program leadership were asked to complete a 10 question survey, which included likert, multiple choice, and open response questions. There were 73 responses (86.3% PDs, 12.3% APDs, 2.7% CDs, Vice Chair of Education 1.4%). Descriptive and summary statistics were used.Results: When asked comfort level with formats for 2021-2022, respondents felt most comfortable (agree or strongly agree) with virtual interviews only (64.4%), followed by virtual interviews with all applicants with optional in person second looks (57.5%), in person interviews only (50.7%), and offering both in person and virtual formats with applicants choosing the format they prefer (29.1%). When asked which one format they prefer, 37% preferred virtual interviews with all applicants with optional in person second looks, followed by 26% virtual interviews only, 20.5% offering both in person and virtual formats with applicants choosing which format they prefer, and 16.4% preferred in person interviews only (Figure 1). There was concern for bias if students are given a choice between in person and virtual interviews (Figure 2). In the open response, a novel idea suggested second looks for students after programs have submitted their rank list, yet before students submit their lists.Conclusions: A majority of EM program leaders feel comfortable with virtual interviews only for the 2021-2022 cycle. The largest percentage prefer virtual interviews with all applicants, with optional in person second looks. As a follow up, we plan to survey current interns who interviewed in 2020-2021.

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.

Recommendations from the Council of Residency Directors Application Process Improvement Committee (CORD-APIC)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.

Objectives: The residency application process has become increasingly complex for medical students and advisors to navigate. Program signaling was piloted to improve applicants' abilities to obtain interview offers at programs they were strongly interested in. The initial positive results led to expansion of signaling to additional specialties over the next two application cycles. Despite the benefits of program signaling, the variation in signaling practices among specialties has presented challenges for both advisors and students when determining how to best allocate signals. The aim of this study is to identify students' perceptions of the signaling process, how this may impact outcomes, and to guide future educational programming. Methods: This is an exploratory original survey study of students in a US allopathic medical school applying in ERAS for the 2023 residency cycle. The survey was developed to determine students' understanding of how programs would use signals in the application process and assess strategies students used to allocate signals. We compared program signals to student interview offers and match outcomes using descriptive statistics. Results: 57 of 96 eligible students completed the survey. 51% signaled a range of programs based on their perceived competitiveness for the program while 40% signaled programs of interest regardless of perceived competitiveness. 53% of students thought sending a signal would increase their chance of an interview, while 42% were unsure how the signal would be used by residency programs. Students received interviews at 49% of the programs signaled, which increased to 56.5% when specialties offering more than 7 signals were excluded. 35% of students matched at a signaled program. Conclusions: Students' perceptions and strategies related to the signaling process are varied and may impact interview offers. Advisors should monitor and review internal institutional trends to help inform future educational programming to optimize signal allocation for their students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heart failure is a leading cause of hospitalization with a high readmission rate. Mobile integrated health care (MIH) programs have expanded the role of emergency medical services to provide community-based care to patients with chronic disease, such as heart failure. However, there is little data published on the outcomes of MIH programs. Objective: This study evaluated the effect of a rural MIH program on emergency department and inpatient utilization for patients with congestive heart failure. Methods: A retrospective propensity score matched case-control study patients was performed for patients who participated in the MIH program associated with a single rural Pennsylvania health system between April 2014 and June 2020. Cases and controls were matched based on demographics and comorbidities. Pre- and post-intervention utilization were examined at 30, 90, and 180 days from the index encounters within the treatment groups, and then compared to the change in utilization among controls. Results: 1237 patients were analyzed. The change in all-cause ED utilization among cases was significantly better than the change in ED utilization among controls at 30 (Δ = -3.6%; 95% CI: −6.1%, −1.1%) and 90 days (Δ = -3.5%; 95% CI: −6.7%, −0.2%). There was no significant change in all-cause inpatient utilization at 30, 90, or 180 days. Limiting to CHF-only encounters also showed no significant change in utilization between cases and controls at any of the time intervals. Conclusion: Analysis of this MIH program demonstrates efficacy in delivering community-based care to reduce all-cause ED utilization. Prospective studies should be conducted to better assess the effects on inpatient utilization, cost data, and patient satisfaction to evaluate the effectiveness of such programs more holistically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to substantial changes in the delivery of healthcare and medical education. Little is known about how the pandemic has altered medical students' perceptions in regard to career choice. Methods The authors developed and implemented a multi-center survey that evaluated medical students' preferred career choice before and during the coronavirus pandemic, as well as the influence of pandemic-related factors on that choice. The survey was distributed to all levels of medical students (MS) at nine medical schools across the country from November 2020 to January 2021 and represented a convenience sample. Preferred career choice was assessed through the use of a Likert scale and additional factors affecting career choice were solicited. The degree of interest before and during the pandemic, as well as factors influencing the shift, were treated as ordinal variables and compared using chi-squared testing. Cohen's Kappa statistic was calculated to assess the degree of shifts of interest in Emergency Medicine among students. The study was deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board at the host institution, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, and all participating sites. Results A total of 1431 of 6710 (21.3%) eligible students completed the survey. The COVID pandemic was cited as a reason for a changed interest in specialty by 193 (13.5%) students. The most common reason for specialty change was the students' clinical experience, followed by a desire to be on the front lines, and personal/family health concerns. There was a significant association between career change and degree of interest among students interested in emergency medicine (EM) as their future specialty before the COVID pandemic as well as during the COVID pandemic. Living with an immunocompromised individual had a significant association with a reduced interest in EM. There was a significant association between EM rotation completion and how interested students were in EM as their future specialty before the COVID pandemic and during the COVID pandemic. Among EM-interested students whose specialty interest was changed by the COVID pandemic, 34 (41.5%) became less favorable to EM, 28 (34.2%) stayed the same, and 20 (24.4%) students became more favorable to EM. Conclusions The impact of COVID-19 on medical students' career choice is a complicated matter that involves both personal and professional factors. It appears that there is a trend towards less interest in the field of EM with multifactorial influences, some of which are related to the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Chandra et al.)

Background: The approach to managing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) has generally involved either minimal on-scene resuscitation to reduce time to arrival at hospital or extended care at the scene to increase the chance of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) before transport. This study compared patient outcomes across EMS agencies with respect to the duration of on-scene time. We hypothesized that EMS agencies with greater average time on-scene would have more favorable outcomes., Methods: The Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) was used to identify OOHCA cases, including characteristics and outcomes. EMS agencies were included if they submitted at least 80 OOHCAs from 2013 to 2017. To study outcomes based upon culture of OOHCA management, outcomes were studied by EMS agency rather than by individual patient cases. Agencies in the top and bottom quartiles of on-scene time duration were categorized as high (HOSTAs) and low on-scene time agencies (LOSTAs), respectively. Generalized estimating equation models compared HOSTAs and LOSTAs., Results: We classified 89 agencies as HOSTAs (24,114 patients, average ≥25 minutes on scene) and 89 agencies as LOSTAs (37,297 patients, average <18.9 minutes on-scene). Among patients transported, HOSTAs were more likely to have a shockable rhythm (28.4% vs. 22.2%, OR = 1.4, 95%CI 1.2 to 1.5), a witnessed arrest (65.1% vs. 53.6%, OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.5 to 1.9), and receive bystander CPR (41.9% vs. 37.0%, OR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5) than LOSTAs, all p < 0.001. When controlling for these and other patient characteristics, including mechanical CPR device use, HOSTAs had a higher proportion of ROSC on emergency department arrival (66.7% vs. 31.1%, OR = 4.6, 95%CI 3.5 to 6.0, p < 0.001), survival to discharge for transported patients (22.3% vs. 11.2%, OR = 2.6, 95%CI 2.0 to 3.4, p < 0.001), and good neurologic outcome among survivors (84.9% vs. 78.6%, OR = 1.3, 95%CI = 1.0 to 1.7, p = 0.04) than LOSTAs., Conclusions: This study suggests that HOSTAs have more favorable patient outcomes compared to LOSTAs. RESULTS indicate that spending more time on-scene performing resuscitation is associated with higher rates of ROSC, survival and survival with good neurologic function.