Effect of Changes in Graduate Medical Education Funding on Emergency Medicine Residency Programs

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether changes in graduate medical education (GME) funding have had an impact on emergency medicine (EM) residency training programs. METHODS: A 34-question survey was mailed to the program directors (PDs) of all 115 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited EM residency programs in the United States in the fall of 1998, requesting information concerning the impact of changes in GME funding on various aspects of the EM training. The results were then compared with a similar unpublished survey conducted in the fall of 1996. RESULTS: One hundred one completed surveys were returned (88% response rate). Seventy-one (70%) of the responding EM residency programs were PGY-I through PGY-III, compared with 55 (61%) of the responding programs in 1996. The number of PGY-II through PGY-IV programs decreased from 25 (28%) of responding programs in 1996 to 17 (16%). The number of PGY-I through PGY-IV programs increased slightly (13 vs 10); the number of EM residency positions remained relatively stable. Fifteen programs projected an increase in their number of training positions in the next two years, while only three predicted a decrease. Of the respondents, 56 programs reported reductions in non-EM residency positions and 35 programs reported elimination of fellowship positions at their institutions. Only four of these were EM fellowships. Forty-six respondents reported a reduction in the number of non-EM residents rotating through their EDs, and of these, 11 programs reported this had a moderate to significant effect on their ability to adequately staff the ED with resident physicians. Sixteen programs limited resident recruitment to only those eligible for the full three years of GME funding. Eighty-seven EM programs reported no change in faculty size due to funding issues. Sixty-two programs reported no change in the total number of hours of faculty coverage in the ED, while 34 programs reported an increase. Three EM programs reported recommendations being made to close their residency programs in the near future. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in GME funding have not caused a decrease in the number of existing EM residency and fellowship training positions, but may have had an impact in other areas, including: an increase in the number of EM programs structured in a PGY-I through PGY-III format (with a corresponding decrease in the number of PGY-II through PGY-IV programs); a decrease in the number of non-EM residents rotating through the ED; restriction of resident applicants who are ineligible for full GME funding from consideration by some EM training programs; and an increase in the total number of faculty clinical hours without an increase in faculty size.     

Current status of International Emergency Medicine fellowships in the United States

OBJECTIVE: A consensus panel of Emergency Physicians with experience in international health has published a recommended curriculum for a formal fellowship in International Emergency Medicine. This article reviews the current International Emergency. Medicine (IEM) fellowships available to residency-trained Emergency Physicians in the United States. METHODS: Every allopathic Emergency Medicine (EM) residency program in the United States was contacted via e-mail or telephone. Programs that reported having an IEM fellowship were asked detailed information about their program, including: (1) the number of years the program has been offered; (2) the duration of the program; (3) the number of fellows taken each year; (4) the number of fellowship graduates from each program and their current practice patterns; (5) how the fellowship is funded; and (6) whether a Masters Degree in Public Health (MPH) is offered. RESULTS: All 127 allopathic EM residency programs responded. Eight (6.8%) of these programs offered IEM fellowships. Of a total of 29 graduates identified, 23 (79.3%) were employed in academic medicine. All of the fellowships offered formal public health training and were funded by a combination of clinical billing and project-specific grants and scholarships. All IEM fellowships described a curriculum that reflected the previously published recommendations. CONCLUSION: Opportunities in formal training in international health are increasing for graduates of EM residencies in the United States. The proposed curriculum for IEM fellowships seems to have been implemented and graduates of IEM fellowships seem to be applying their training in international projects.     

Resident perspectives of ems as a subspecialty

Objective. Emergency medical services (EMS) is frequently considered to be a subspecialty of emergency medicine (EM) despite the unavailability of subspecialty certification. An assessment of future interest in EMS subspecialization and the perceived educational needs of potential EMS physicians was performed in order to provide data to leaders responsible for development of this subspecialty area. Methods. A survey concerning EMS subspecialization issues was distributed to 2,464 members of the Emergency Medicine Residents Association (EMRA). Questions addressed demographic information, interest in EMS, educational issues, and desired credentials. The response rate was 30% (n = 737). All surveys were analyzed by the Pearson chi-square probability and Mantel-Haenszel tests for linear association. Results. A moderate to very high interest in EMS medical direction was expressed by 84% of the respondents, with 14% interested in full-time EMS positions. This interest increased with years of training (p < 0.0001). Almost 89% believed that EMS physicians should have special preparations prior to practice beyond EM residency training. Fewer than half (44%) thought that an EM residency provided sufficient preparation for a significant role in EMS, and this perception increased in intensity with years of training (p < 0.0052). Interest in EMS fellowships (24%) would increase to 36% if subspecialty certification were available (p < 0.0001). Thirty-nine percent believed subcertification should be required of all EMS medical directors if available. Conclusions. Many EM residents have an interest in active participation in EMS on either a part-time or a full-time basis. Most respondents think EMS is a unique area requiring focused education beyond an EM residency. Interest in EMS fellowships would greatly increase if subspecialty certification were available.     

A survey to determine the prevalence and characteristics of training in Evidence-Based Medicine in emergency medicine residency programs

We conducted a survey to determine the prevalence, training methods, and allotment of time for teaching evidence-based medicine (EBM) skills within accredited Emergency Medicine (EM) residency programs in the United States. A survey was mailed to program directors of all 122 accredited Emergency Medicine residency programs. The survey was also sent to program directors using an e-mail listserv. Responses were obtained from 53% of programs; 80% (95% CI: 68-89) of EM programs reported teaching some EBM. Although respondents believed a median of 10 hours were required to adequately cover this topic, only 22% provided more than 5 hours per year. Sixtey-three percent (95% CI: 50-75) of respondents reported using the JAMA Users' Guides series in journal club and 83% reported efforts to link journal clubs to patient care. Perceived barriers to integrating EBM into teaching and patient care included lack of trained faculty, lack of time, lack of familiarity with EBM resources, insufficient funding, and lack of interested faculty. In summary, academic EM programs are attempting to train residents in EBM, but perceive a lack of trained faculty, time, and funding as barriers. Desired resources include a defined curriculum, on-line training for faculty, and defined strategies for integration of EBM into training and patient care.     

Observation Medicine in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate observation unit (OU) prevalence, emergency medicine (EM) resident exposure in observation medicine (OM), EM faculty/residency director (RD) OM training, and RD attitudes toward OM. METHODS: Information was obtained from residency programs by telephone during a four-month period. RESULTS: Survey respondents indicated that 36.1% have OUs and 44.9% plan to have an OU. Observation medicine resources include textbooks 32.0%, articles 45.9%, lectures 36.9%, fellowships 2.5%, and research 26.2%. Observation medicine patient care occurs: 1) during residency: 25.4% of RDs, 11.3% of entire faculty; 2) as an attending: 45.1% of RDs. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly two-thirds of EM programs have or are planning an OU. Resources are lagging behind. This survey describes current OM education strategies to teach OM.     

Pediatric emergency medicine fellowships: faculty and resident training profiles

The objective of this study was to evaluate the faculty and graduate training profiles of Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM) fellowship training programs. An electronic 10-point questionnaire was sent to 57 PEM fellowship directors, with a 70% response rate. Analysis of the individual certification of faculty members in PEM training programs demonstrated that the largest represented training types were general pediatricians and pediatricians with PEM sub-certification (29% and 62% representation, respectively). The remaining faculty types consistently showed < 5% overall involvement. Reported estimates on faculty delivery of clinical training, didactic training, and procedural skills demonstrated that pediatricians sub-board certified in PEM consistently administered the highest percentage of these skill sets (74%, 68%, and 68%, respectively). Emergency Medicine-trained physicians showed a relative increase of involvement in fellowship programs administered by Emergency Medicine departments and in those programs located within adult hospitals. Yet, this involvement still remained substantially lower than that of the pediatric-type faculty. Program directors of fellowships within pediatric hospitals and those administered by Pediatric programs demonstrated a preference for general pediatricians with sub-board certification in PEM to improve their faculty pools. Program directors of fellowship programs located in adult hospitals and those administered by departments of EM demonstrated no preference in training type. Lastly, program directors report that 95% of past graduates received their primary board certification through Pediatrics and only 5% received their primary board certification through Emergency Medicine. There are currently many more pediatric-trained physicians among PEM fellowship faculty and graduates. This survey has demonstrated that there has been a decline in EM-trained physicians involved in PEM fellowships since 2000.     

Pediatric Emergency Medicine Fellowships: Faculty and Resident Training Profiles

The objective of this study was to evaluate the faculty and graduate training profiles of Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM) fellowship training programs. An electronic 10-point questionnaire was sent to 57 PEM fellowship directors, with a 70% response rate. Analysis of the individual certification of faculty members in PEM training programs demonstrated that the largest represented training types were general pediatricians and pediatricians with PEM sub-certification (29% and 62% representation, respectively). The remaining faculty types consistently showed < 5% overall involvement. Reported estimates on faculty delivery of clinical training, didactic training, and procedural skills demonstrated that pediatricians sub-board certified in PEM consistently administered the highest percentage of these skill sets (74%, 68%, and 68%, respectively). Emergency Medicine-trained physicians showed a relative increase of involvement in fellowship programs administered by Emergency Medicine departments and in those programs located within adult hospitals. Yet, this involvement still remained substantially lower than that of the pediatric-type faculty. Program directors of fellowships within pediatric hospitals and those administered by Pediatric programs demonstrated a preference for general pediatricians with sub-board certification in PEM to improve their faculty pools. Program directors of fellowship programs located in adult hospitals and those administered by departments of EM demonstrated no preference in training type. Lastly, program directors report that 95% of past graduates received their primary board certification through Pediatrics and only 5% received their primary board certification through Emergency Medicine. There are currently many more pediatric-trained physicians among PEM fellowship faculty and graduates. This survey has demonstrated that there has been a decline in EM-trained physicians involved in PEM fellowships since 2000.     

Need for Standardized Sign-out in the Emergency Department: A Survey of Emergency Medicine Residency and Pediatric Emergency Medicine Fellowship Program Directors

Objectives
To determine the existing patterns of sign-out processes prevalent in emergency departments (EDs) nationwide. In addition, to assess whether training programs provide specific guidance to their trainees regarding sign-outs and attitudes of emergency medicine (EM) residency and pediatric EM fellowship program directors toward the need for the development of standardized guidelines relating to sign-outs.
Methods
A Web-based survey of training program directors of each Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited EM residency and pediatric EM fellowship program was conducted in March 2006.
Results
Overall, 185 (61.1%) program directors responded to the survey. One hundred thirty-six (73.5%) program directors reported that sign-outs at change of shift occurred in a common area within the ED, and 79 (42.7%) respondents indicated combined sign-outs in the presence of both attending and resident physicians. A majority of the programs, 119 (89.5%), stated that there was no uniform written policy regarding patient sign-out in their ED. Half (50.3%) of all those surveyed reported that physicians sign out patient details "verbally only," and 79 (42.9%) noted that transfer of attending responsibility was "rarely documented." Only 34 (25.6%) programs affirmed that they had formal didactic sessions focused on sign-outs. A majority (71.6%) of program directors surveyed agreed that specific practice parameters regarding transfer of care in the ED would improve patient care; 80 (72.3%) agreed that a standardized sign-out system in the ED would improve communication and reduce medical error.
Conclusions
There is wide variation in the sign-out processes followed by different EDs. A majority of those surveyed expressed the need for standardized sign-out systems.     

1998-1999 SAEM Emergency Medicine Faculty Salary and Benefits Survey

OBJECTIVES: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) commissioned an emergency medicine (EM) faculty salary and benefits survey for all 1998 residency review committee (RRC)-EM-accredited programs using the SAEM fourth-generation survey instrument. Responses were collected by SAEM and blinded from the investigators. METHODS: Blinded program and individual faculty data were entered into a customized version of FileMaker Pro, a relational database program with a built-in statistical package. Salary data were sorted by program region, faculty title, American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) certification, academic rank, years postresidency, program size, and whether data were reported to the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). Demographic data were analyzed with regard to numerous criteria, including department staffing levels, ED volumes, ED length of stay, department income sources, salary incentive components, and specific type and value of fringe benefits offered. Data were compared with those from previous SAEM studies. RESULTS: Seventy-three of 120 (61%) accredited programs responded, yielding usable data for 70 programs and 965 full-time faculty among the four AAMC regions. Mean salaries were reported as follows: all faculty, $167,478; first-year faculty, $140,616; programs reporting data to the AAMC, $161,794; programs not reporting data to the AAMC, $165,724. Mean salaries as reported by AAMC region: northeast, $167,876; south, $160,586; midwest, $190,957; west, $148,977. CONCLUSIONS: Reported salaries for full-time EM residency faculty continue to rise. Significant regional differences in salaries have been present in all four SAEM surveys. Nonclinical hours are compensated at approximately one-half the rate paid for clinical hours. The demographic data indicate that EM residency faculty are working at the upper extremes of numbers of patient encounters per physician, patient acuity levels, and department lengths of stay.     

2001-2002 SAEM Emergency Medicine Faculty Salary and Benefits Survey

OBJECTIVE: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) commissioned an emergency medicine (EM) faculty salary and benefits survey for all 2001 residency review committee (RRC)-EM-accredited programs using the SAEM fifth-generation survey instrument. Responses were collected by SAEM and blinded from the investigators. Data represent compensation paid for the 2001-02 academic year. Seventy-six of 124 (61%) accredited programs responded, yielding usable data on 1,355 full-time faculty representing all four Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) regions. METHODS: Blinded program and individual faculty data were entered into a customized version of Filemaker Pro, a relational database program with a built-in statistical package. Salary data were sorted by criteria such as program region, faculty title, American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) certification, academic rank, years postresidency, program size, and whether data were reported to the AAMC. Demographic data were analyzed with regard to numerous criteria, including department staffing levels, emergency department (ED) volumes, ED length of stay, department income sources, salary incentive components, research funding, and specific type and value of fringe benefits offered. Data were compared with those from previous SAEM studies. RESULTS: Mean salaries were reported as follows: all faculty, $180,913; first-year faculty, $147,746; programs reporting data to the AAMC, $174,354; programs not reporting data to the AAMC, $191,397. Mean salaries as reported by AAMC region: northeast, $178,593; south, $176,314; midwest, $200,095; west, $166,779. Full-time emergency medicine residency program faculty work an average of 1,129 clinical hours per year. CONCLUSIONS: Reported salaries for full-time EM residency faculty have risen approximately 8.7% since the last survey. Up to approximately 1,200 clinical hours worked per year, salary varies inversely with clinical hours worked. Total per-faculty patient contact time (overall workload) has grown approximately 13% since the last survey. Patient wait times have increased approximately 27% since the last survey. Significant regional differences in salaries have been present in all five SAEM surveys. Emergency medicine residency faculty continue to work at the upper extremes of patient encounters per physician, patient acuity levels, and department lengths of stay.     

Injuries to emergency medicine residents on ems rotations

Objectives. To study the incidence and nature of injuries sustained by emergency medicine (EM) residents during EMS rotations, and steps taken at EM residency programs to increase resident safety during field activities. Methods. An eight-question survey form was mailed to all 114 U.S. EM residency directors, with a second mailing to nonresponders eight weeks after the initial mailing. Results. A total of 105 surveys were returned (92%). Six surveys were from new programs whose residents have not yet rotated on EMS. These were excluded from further analysis, leaving 99 programs. Of these, 91 (92%) reported no injuries. One EM resident died in a helicopter crash in 1985. Seven other injury events were reported: 1) facial lacerations, rib fractures, and a shoulder injury in an ambulance accident; 2) an open finger fracture (crushed by a backboard); 3) contusions and a concussion when an ambulance was struck by a fire engine; 4) a groin pull sustained while entering a helicopter; 5) bilateral metatarsal fractures in a fall; 6) rib fractures, a pneumothorax, and a concussion in an ambulance accident; and 7) “minor injuries” sustained in a crash while responding to a scene in a program-owned response vehicle. Actions taken at residency programs to reduce the risk of injury include the use of ballistic vests (four programs), requiring helmets on flights (five programs), and changing flight experience from mandatory to optional (two programs). Ten programs (10%) reported using ground scene safety lectures, and nine programs (15% of those offering flights) reported various types of flight safety instruction. Sixty-nine programs (70%) reported no formal field safety training or other active steps to increase resident safety on EMS rotations. Conclusions. Injuries sustained by EM residents during EMS rotations are uncommon but nontrivial, with several serious injuries and one fatality reported. The majority of EM residency programs have no formal safety training programs for EMS rotations.     

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine's 2004–2005 Emergency Medicine Faculty Salary and Benefit Survey

Objectives: To report on the sixth survey of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) of emergency medicine faculty salaries, benefits, work hours, and department demographics for all programs accredited by the Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine (RRC‐EM). Methods: Data represent compensation paid for the 2004–2005 academic year. Responses were collected by SAEM, and blinded program and individual faculty data were entered into a customized version of a relational database program with a built‐in statistical package. Salary data were sorted by criteria such as program region, faculty title, American Board of Emergency Medicine certification, academic rank, years since completing residency, program size, and whether data were reported to the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). Demographic data were analyzed with regard to numerous criteria including department staffing levels, emergency department (ED) volumes, ED length of stay, department income sources, salary incentive components, research funding, and specific type and value of fringe benefits offered. Data were compared with previous SAEM studies. Results: Sixty‐one of 132 (46%) accredited programs responded, yielding data on 1,213 full‐time faculty from all four AAMC regions. Mean salaries were reported as follows: all faculty, $189,848; first‐year faculty, $153,855; programs reporting data to AAMC, $183,605; programs not reporting data to AAMC, $204,383; core faculty, $197,259; and noncore faculty, $164,215. Mean salaries as reported by AAMC region were as follows: Northeast, $192,864; South, $182,768; Midwest, $192,224; and West, $195,732. Full‐time emergency medicine residency program faculty are reported to be working an average of 1,032 total clinical hours per year. Workweeks average 22 clinical hours per week and 22 nonclinical hours per week, with 5.1 weeks of time off per year. Conclusions: Reported salaries for full‐time emergency medicine residency faculty continue to rise overall but fell for the first time in one region (the Midwest). Academic rank continues to correlate directly with salary. Fellowship training continues to show a negative correlation with salary. Significant regional differences in salaries have been present in all six SAEM surveys.     

Emergency Medical Services Education in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs: A National Survey

Objectives: Emergency medical services (EMS) was recently approved as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties, highlighting the core content of knowledge that encompasses prehospital emergency patient care. This study aimed to describe the current state of EMS education at emergency medicine (EM) residency programs in the United States. Methods: The authors distributed an online survey containing multiple‐choice and free‐response questions pertaining to resident EMS education to the directors of EM residency programs in the United States between July 21 and September 10, 2010. Results: Of 154 programs, 117 (75%) responded to the survey, and 108 (70%) completed the survey by answering all required questions. Of completed surveys, 82 programs (76%) reported the cumulative time devoted to EMS didactic education during the course of residency training, a median of 20 hours (range = 3 to 300 hours; interquartile range [IQR] = 12 to 36 hours). There is a designated EMS rotation in 89% of programs, with a median duration of 3 weeks (range = 1 to 9 weeks; IQR = 2 to 4 weeks). Most programs involve residents on EMS rotations strictly as in‐field observers (63%), some as in‐field providers (20%), and the rest with some combination of the two roles. Ground ride‐along is required in 94% of programs, while air ride‐along is mandatory in 4% and optional in 81% of programs. Direct medical oversight (DMO) certification is required in 41% of residency programs, but not available in 26% of program jurisdictions. Residents in 92% of programs provide DMO. In those programs, most residents (77%) provide DMO primarily while working in the emergency department (ED), 13% during dedicated EMS or medical oversight shifts, and 4% during a combination of these shifts. Disaster‐preparedness was most frequently listed as the component programs would like to add to their EMS curricula. Conclusions: There is a wide range in the didactic, online, and in‐field EMS educational experiences provided as part of EM training. Most residents participate in ground ride‐along activities, provide DMO, and have a dedicated EMS rotation. Disaster‐preparedness is the most common desired addition to existing EMS rotations. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2012; 19:1–6 © 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine     

The Status of Bedside Ultrasonography Training in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs

Bedside ultrasonography (BU) is rapidly being incorporated into emergency medicine (EM) training programs and clinical practice. In the past decade, several organizations in EM have issued position statements on the use of this technology. Program training content is currently driven by the recently published "Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine," which includes BU as a necessary skill. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine the current status of BU training in EM residency programs. METHODS: A survey was mailed in early 2001 to all 122 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited EM residency programs. The survey instrument asked whether BU was currently being taught, how much didactic and hands-on training time was incorporated into the curriculum, and what specialty representation was present in the faculty instructors. In addition, questions concerning the type of tests performed, the number considered necessary for competency, the role of BU in clinical decision making, and the type of quality assurance program were included in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 96 out of 122 surveys were completed (response rate of 79%). Ninety-one EM programs (95% of respondents) reported they teach BU, either clinically and/or didactically, as part of their formal residency curriculum. Eighty-one (89%) respondents reported their residency program or primary hospital emergency department (ED) had a dedicated ultrasound machine. BU was performed most commonly for the following: the FAST scan (focused abdominal sonography for trauma, 79/87%); cardiac examination (for tamponade, pulseless electrical activity, etc., 65/71%); transabdominal (for intrauterine pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, etc., 58/64%); and transvaginal (for intrauterine pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, etc., 45/49%). One to ten hours of lecture on BU was provided in 43%, and one to ten hours of hands-on clinical instruction was provided in 48% of the EM programs. Emergency physicians were identified as the faculty most commonly involved in teaching BU to EM residents (86/95%). Sixty-one (69%) programs reported that EM faculty and/or residents made clinical decisions and patient dispositions based on the ED BU interpretation alone. Fourteen (19%) programs reported that no formal quality assurance program was in place. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ACGME-accredited EM residency programs currently incorporate BU training as part of their curriculum. The majority of BU instruction is done by EM faculty. The most commonly performed BU study is the FAST scan. The didactic component and clinical time devoted to BU instruction are variable between programs. Further standardization of training requirements between programs may promote increasing standardization of BU in future EM practice.     

The Threat of Funding Cuts for Graduate Medical Education: Survey of Decision Makers

Objective: To assess the potential actions of medical school deans, graduate medical education (GME) committee chairs, and hospital chief executive officers (CEOs) regarding future funding reductions for residency training. Specifically, institutions with emergency medicine (EM) residencies were surveyed to see whether EM training was disproportionally at risk for reductions.
Methods: An anonymous 2-page survey was used. Ninety-eight EM residency programs were identified using the American Medical Association Graduate Medical Education Directory 1994–95. Seventy deans, 102 GME chairs, and 97 hospital CEOs were identified. The survey posed a hypothetical 25% forced reduction in residency positions and asked the decision makers for their responses. Options included: 1) proportional reductions of training positions from all residencies, 2) proportional reductions in either primary care or specialty residency positions, or 3) reduction or elimination of specific training programs. The survey asked for a first and second choice of residencies to be reduced or eliminated from an alphabetical list of 17. The survey elicited explanations for each program reduction.
Results: 200 (74%) of 269 surveys were returned. Eighty-four responders selected specific residencies to be reduced or eliminated. EM was selected 8 times, making EM the seventh most vulnerable residency to be targeted for reductions. The decision makers who selected proportional reductions chose to reduce across all residencies 32 times, among only the specialty residencies 129 times, and among only the primary care residencies 3 times.
Conclusions: In the setting of anticipated residency cuts, favored proportional reductions in specialty residencies would likely affect EM training. However, most GME decision makers with an existing EM residency program do not consider the EM residency a top choice to be reduced or eliminated.     

1995–1996 SAEM Emergency Medicine Faculty Salary/Benefits Survey

Abstract. Objective: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) commissioned an emergency medicine (EM) faculty salary and benefit survey for all 1995 Residency Review Committee in Emergency Medicine (RRC-EM)-accredited programs using the SAEM third-generation survey instrument. Responses were collected by SAEM and blinded from the investigators. Population: Seventy-six of 112 (68%) accredited programs responded, yielding data for 1,032 full-time faculty among the four Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) regions. Methods: Blinded program and individual faculty data were entered into a customized version of Filemaker Pro, a relational database program with a built-in statistical package. Salary data were sorted by 115 separate criteria such as program regions, faculty title, American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) certification, academic rank, years postresidency, program size, and whether data were reported to AAMC. Demographic data from 132 categories were analyzed and included number of staff and residents per shift, number of intensive care unit (ICU) beds, obstacles to hiring new staff, and specific type and value of fringe benefits offered. Data were compared with those from the 1990 and 1992 SAEM and the 1995-96 AAMC studies. Results: Mean salaries were reported as follows: all faculty, $158,100; first-year faculty, $131,074; programs reporting data to AAMC, $152,198; programs not reporting data to AAMC, $169,251. Mean salaries as reported by AAMC region: northeast, $155,909; south, $155,403; midwest, $172,260; west, $139,930. Mean salaries as reported by program financial source: community, $175,599; university, $152,878; municipal, $141,566. Conclusions: Reported salaries for full-time EM residency faculty continue to rise. Salaries in programs reporting data to the AAMC are considerably lower than those not reporting. The gap between ABEM-certified and non-ABEM-certified faculty continues to widen. Residency-trained faculty are now shown to earn more than non-residency-trained faculty. Significant regional differences in salaries have been present in all three SAEM surveys.     

The Impact of Environmental Factors on Emergency Medicine Resident Career Choice

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of environmental factors on emergency medicine (EM) resident career choice. METHODS: Program directors of all U.S. EM residencies were surveyed in November 1997. A 22-item questionnaire assessed resources allocated to research, fellowship availability, academic productivity of faculty and residents, and career choices of residency graduates. RESULTS: The response rate was 83%. The program director (mean+/-SD) estimates of resident career choice were as follows: 27.8+/-19.1% pursued academic positions with emphasis on teaching, 5.4+/-9.8% pursued academic positions with emphasis on research, and 66.8+/-23.1%, pursued private practice positions. In addition, 5.70+/-6.13% of the residency graduates were estimated to seek fellowship training. Univariate analyses demonstrated that increasing departmental funding for research, having substantial resource availability (defined as having at least two of the following: dedicated laboratory space; support for a laboratory research technician/assistant, a clinical research nurse or study coordinator, a statistician, or an assistant with a PhD degree), a greater number of peer-reviewed publications by residents (r = 0.22; p = 0.08), and a greater number of peer-reviewed publications by faculty (r = 0.26; p = 0.04) positively correlated with the percentage of graduates who pursue academic research careers. Using multiple regression, however, increasing intramural funding and the presence of substantial resource availability were the only variables predictive of resident pursuit of an academic research career. CONCLUSION: Modification of the EM training environment may influence the career choices of graduates. Specifically, greater commitment of departmental funds and support of resources for research may enhance the likelihood of a trainee's choosing an academic research career.