Changing Status of Academic Emergency Medicine (1991–1996)

Objective: An SAEM national task force previously concluded that academic departments and residencies in emergency medicine (EM) had preferentially developed outside of the academic mainstream. This study was designed to determine whether EM has made significant inroads into academic medical centers over the past 5 years. Methods: The baseline data set (7/1/91) contained all 126 Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)-accredited schools, and all 87 Residency Review Committee (RRC)-accredited EM residencies. The comparison data set (7/1/96) contained all 124 LCME-accredited schools, and all 114 RRC-accredited EM residencies. The 1991–96 increment in academic departments and university-hospital residencies was examined in the aggregate, then stratified by medical schools grouped into quartiles and contiguous quartiles, according to academic ranking. A-priori and post-hoc comparisons were expressed with 95% and 99% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively.
Results: Over the past 5 years, the proportion of academic departments of EM increased by 23%, from 18% to 41% of all LCME-accredited schools (95% CI 12% to 34%). The largest increase (58%; 99% CI 40% to 77%) occurred among those schools academically ranked above the median. The proportion of EM residencies at university hospitals increased by 17%, from 40% to 57% (95% CI 5% to 30%). Again, the largest increase (25%; 99% CI 3% to 47%) occurred at university hospitals affiliated with schools academically ranked above the median.
Conclusion: EM has made substantial inroads into academic medical centers over the past 5 years. This is reflected in quantitatively and statistically significant increases in academic departments and university-hospital residency programs, both occurring largely within institutions whose academic rankings place them among the upper half of all LCME-accredited medical schools.     

University and Community Hospital Medical Student Emergency Medicine Clerkship Experiences

Objective : To determine whether there is a significant difference between educational opportunities for fourth-year medical students rotating at a university hospital (UH) compared with several community hospitals (CHs) during a mandatory emergency medicine (EM) clerkship.
Methods : A self-reported clinical tool was completed in real time by each student rotating for 2 weeks at the UH and 2 weeks at 1 of 4 CHs (3 affiliated and 1 unaffiliated). Students are required to document the number of patients seen and the number of procedures performed on each of 20 six-hour shifts. They rated the EM attending clinical teaching by site using a 5-point scale at the end of the clerkship.
Results : Most (95%) of the 87 students in the 7 clerkship blocks of the 1996–97 academic year rotated at the UH and a CH. Most (71%) students rated both the UH and the CH for the quality of teaching by attendings. There was a significant difference in the mean number of patients evaluated/shift (2.2 ± 0.10 vs 2.8 ± 0.10, UH vs CH; p < 0.001) and the mean number of procedures performed/shift (0.36 ± 0.04 vs 0.56 ± 0.05, UH vs CH; p < 0.001). Attending clinical teaching scores were significantly higher (p = 0.03) at the CHs.
Conclusions : The educational opportunities for students in an EM clerkship to evaluate patients and perform procedures were significantly greater at the community hospitals. Inclusion of community hospital settings in a medical student EM clerkship may optimize the clinical experience.     

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.     

Level I Trauma Certification and Emergency Medicine Resident Major Trauma Experience

Objective: American College of Surgeons (ACS) and Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine (RRC–EM) guidelines conflict regarding the role of emergency physicians in directing major trauma resuscitations. This article describes the impact of ACS level I trauma certification on emergency medicine (EM) resident trauma experience.
Methods: A written survey and a follow–up letter were sent to all 101 EM program directors as of August 16, 1994. The survey addressed demographics and trauma experience at hospitals designated by the RRC–EM as primary training sites.
Results: There were 95 (94%) survey respondents. Estimates of the percentage of trauma resuscitations directed by EM residents were significantly lower at level I centers (52% X 27%, 95% CI 45–59%) than they were at non–level I centers (70% X 30%, 95% CI 58–82%) (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in trauma census between level I and non–level I centers. Of 14 respondents who said they were cited by the RRC–EM for inadequate trauma experience, ten (71%) were in ACS level I trauma centers (p = 1.0). Twelve of the 14 respondents cited for inadequate trauma experience were in either the Northeast or the Midwest.
Conclusions: EM residents direct a smaller percentage of major trauma resuscitations at ACS level I hospitals than they do at non–level I facilities. This finding is not offset by an increased trauma census at level I facilities and may be more pronounced in the Northeast and the Midwest.     

Patient Concerns about Medical Errors in Emergency Departments

OBJECTIVE: Despite large numbers of emergency encounters, little is known about how emergency department (ED) patients conceptualize their risk of medical errors. This study examines how safe ED patients feel from medical errors, which errors are of greatest concern, how concerns differ by patient and hospital characteristics, and the relationship between concerns and willingness to return for future care. METHODS: Multiwave telephone interviews of 767 patients from 12 EDs were conducted. Patients were asked about their medical safety, concern about eight types of medical errors, and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent of patients believed that their safety from medical errors had been good, very good, or excellent; 38% of patients reported experiencing at least one specific error-related concern, most commonly misdiagnosis (22% of all patients), physician errors (16%), medication errors (16%), nursing errors (12%), and wrong test/procedure (10%). Concerns were associated with gender (p < 0.01), age (p < 0.0001), ethnicity (p < 0.001), length of stay (p < 0.001), ED volume (p < 0.0001), day of week (p < 0.0001), and hospital type (p < 0.0001). Concerns were highly related to a patient's willingness to return to the ED. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ED patients felt relatively safe from medical errors, yet a significant percentage of patients experienced concern about a specific error during their emergency encounter. Concerns varied by both patient and hospital characteristics and were highly linked to patient satisfaction. The selective nature of concerns may suggest that patients are attuned to cues they perceive to be linked to specific medical errors, but efforts to involve patients in error detection/prevention programs will be challenging given the stressful and intimidating nature of ED encounters.     

Medical Student Career Advice Related to Emergency Medicine

Objective: To describe the advisors and the advice given to residency candidate interviewees interested in specializing in emergency medicine (EM).
Methods: All interviewees at a university-based EM residency program were surveyed. Data were collected anonymously and included demographic information, characteristics of each applicant's medical school, career advice by non-EM faculty, and access to advisors who are residency-trained in and practicing EM.
Results: Of 114 interviewees, 104 (91%) completed the survey. Only 45% of the respondents reported they were assigned an emergency physician (EP) advisor by their school, and 38% sought advice informally from an EP. Of those students receiving advice from an EP, 70% reported their advisor was residency-trained in EM. Most (57%) respondents reported receiving negative advice concerning a career in EM from non-EM medical school faculty. Of the 59 students reporting negative advice, 18 (31%) received negative comments from non-EM residency program directors, 23 (39%) from non-EM department chairs, and 4 (7%) from medical school deans. The presence of a residency training program increased the chances of a student's being assigned an EP advisor, but neither an EP advisor nor the departmental status of EM within the students' institutions was associated with receipt of negative advice.
Conclusions: Students considering specializing in EM often receive negative advice or have no assigned EP advisor. These factors may adversely affect entry into the field of EM.     

Current Status of Academic Emergency Medicine within Academic Medicine in the United States

ABSTRACT
Objective : To characterize the status of emergency medicine within U.S. academic medical centers.
Methods : All accredited emergency medicine residency programs and all four-year allopathic medical schools in the United States were identified. Institutions were defined as academic medical centers based upon NIH research grant funding. These institutions were ranked using five measures of academic stature: a survey of medical school deans, a survey of internal medicine residency directors, level of research funding, characteristics of the student body, and an unweighted composite variable reflecting overall academic stature. The relationship between institutional academic stature and an empiric scale of institutional affiliation with emergency medicine was assessed.
Results : Sixty-two institutions were designated academic medical centers. These medical schools captured 90% of all NIH grant monies awarded in fiscal year 1990. Twenty-six of 87 emergency medicine residency programs (30%) were closely affiliated with one of these medical schools. Within academic medical centers, the presence of a residency or an academic department of emergency medicine was inversely associated with the medical school deans' ranking (p < 0.005), research rank (p < 0.001), and composite academic rank (p < 0.0001).
Conclusion : The majority of emergency medicine residency programs (70%) are not closely affiliated with institutions receiving the bulk (90%) of NIH resources for research. Within the institutions receiving the majority of NIH funding, there is a quantitatively and statistically significant inverse association of institutional emergency medicine affiliation and institutional academic rank.     

Rural Emergency Medicine: Patient Volume and Training Opportunities

Background: A paucity of board-certified Emergency Physicians practice in rural Emergency Departments (EDs). One proposed solution has been to train residents in rural EDs to increase the likelihood that they would continue to practice in rural EDs. Some within academic Emergency Medicine question whether rural hospital EDs can provide adequate patient volume for training an Emergency Medicine (EM) resident. Study Objectives: To compare per-physician patient-volumes in rural vs. urban hospital EDs in Oklahoma (OK) and the proportion of board-certified EM physicians in these two ED settings. Methods: A 21-question survey was distributed to all OK hospital ED directors. Analysis was limited to non-military hospitals with EDs having an annual census > 15,000 patient visits. Comparisons were made between rural and urban EDs. Results: There were 37 hospitals included in the analysis. Urban EDs had a higher proportion of board-certified EM physicians than rural EDs (80% vs. 28%). There were 4359 vs. 4470 patients seen per physician FTE (full-time equivalent) in the rural vs. urban ED settings, respectively (p = 0.84). Conclusions: Patient volumes per physician FTE do not differ in rural vs. urban OK hospital EDs, suggesting that an adequate volume of patients exists in rural EDs to support EM resident education. Proportionately fewer board-certified Emergency Physicians staff rural EDs. Opportunities to increase rural ED-based EM resident training should be explored.     

Rate of Patient Workups by Non–Emergency Medicine Residents in an Academic Emergency Department

Objective: To quantify the number of patients seen per hour by non–emergency medicine (non–EM) residents in a university hospital ED.
Methods: This retrospective observational study was performed in a university hospital ED and level I trauma center. The facility had no EM residency, but was staffed with 24–hour EM faculty coverage. A computerized tracking system was searched for the number of patients seen by each of 93 non–EM residents for 12 nonconsecutive months. The ED schedule for each month was used to calculate the number of hours worked by each resident. From these figures, the number of patients seen per hour by each resident was calculated.
Results: The postgraduate years of training of the residents were as follows: 78 (84%) were PGY1, ten (11%) were PGY2, and five (5%) were PGY3. All the residents combined saw a mean 0. 95 ± 0. 20 patients/ hour, with a range from 0. 58 to 1. 75 patients/hour. There was no significant difference between the numbers of patients seen when compared by specialty using the Tukey–Kramer test (α = 0. 05).
Conclusion: The rate at which non–EM residents work up patients is consistent with previously reported rates for EM residents.     

Medical Error Identification,Disclosure, and Reporting: Do Emergency Medicine Provider Groups Differ?

Objectives: To determine if the three types of emergency medicine providers—physicians, nurses, and out‐of‐hospital providers (emergency medical technicians [EMTs])—differ in their identification, disclosure, and reporting of medical error. Methods: A convenience sample of providers in an academic emergency department evaluated ten case vignettes that represented two error types (medication and cognitive) and three severity levels. For each vignette, providers were asked the following: 1) Is this an error? 2) Would you tell the patient? 3) Would you report this to a hospital committee? To assess differences in identification, disclosure, and reporting by provider type, error type, and error severity, the authors constructed three‐way tables with the nonparametric Somers' D clustered on participant. To assess the contribution of disclosure instruction and environmental variables, fixed‐effects regression stratified by provider type was used. Results: Of the 116 providers who were eligible, 103 (40 physicians, 26 nurses, and 35 EMTs) had complete data. Physicians were more likely to classify an event as an error (78%) than nurses (71%; p = 0.04) or EMTs (68%; p < 0.01). Nurses were less likely to disclose an error to the patient (59%) than physicians (71%; p = 0.04). Physicians were the least likely to report the error (54%) compared with nurses (68%; p = 0.02) or EMTs (78%; p < 0.01). For all provider and error types, identification, disclosure, and reporting increased with increasing severity. Conclusions: Improving patient safety hinges on the ability of health care providers to accurately identify, disclose, and report medical errors. Interventions must account for differences in error identification, disclosure, and reporting by provider type.     

Academic Emergency Medicine Staffing Nonacademic Emergency Department Sites: A National Survey

Changing health care markets have threatened academic health centers and their traditional focus on teaching and research. OBJECTIVES: To determine the number of academic emergency medicine departments (AEMDs) that staff additional non-academic ED sites and to determine whether clinical reimbursement monies from those ED sites are used for academic purposes. METHODS: A two-part survey of all 119 academic EM programs listed in the 1997-1998 Graduate Medical Education Directory was conducted. Questionnaires were addressed to each AEMD chair. AEMDs and ED sites were characterized. Hiring difficulties, EM faculty academic productivity, and use of ED site reimbursement monies for academic activities were assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-nine of 119 (83%) AEMDs responded. Twenty-three (23%) AEMDs staffed 28 added ED sites. These sites tended to be urban (65%), with moderate volumes (25,000-35,000 patients/year), and had an equal or better reimbursement rate than the AEMD (89%). ED sites were commonly staffed by academic EM faculty (79%) and EM residents (29%). Ninety-six percent of the AEMDs had hired additional faculty; hiring new faculty was considered easy. Academic productivity at AEMDs with added ED sites was reported as unchanged. Reimbursement monies from these ED sites were commonly used for faculty salary support, faculty development, and EM research and residency activities. CONCLUSIONS: Academic EM departments are often affiliated with nonacademic ED sites. These additional sites are commonly staffed by academic EM faculty and EM residents. Academic productivity does not appear to decrease when additional ED sites are added. Reimbursement monies from these ED sites commonly supports academic activities.     

Emergency Department Information System Adoption in the United States

Objectives: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 incentivizes adoption of health care information technology (HIT) based on support for specific standards, policies, and features. Limited data have been published on national emergency department information systems (EDIS) adoption, and to our knowledge, no prior studies have considered functionality measures. This study determined current national estimates of EDIS adoption using both single‐response rates of EDIS adoption and a novel feature‐based definition and also identified emergency department (ED) characteristics associated with EDIS use. Methods: The 2006 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative sample of ED visits that also surveyed participating EDs on EDIS, was used to estimate EDIS adoption. EDIS adoption rates were calculated using two definitions: 1) single‐response—response to a single survey question as to whether the EDIS was complete, partial, or none; and 2) feature‐based—based on the reported features supported by the EDIS, systems were categorized as fully functional, basic, other, or none. The relationship of EDIS adoption to specific ED characteristics such as facility type and location was also examined. Results: Using the single‐response classification, 16.1% of EDs had a complete EDIS, while 30.4% had a partial EDIS, and 53.5% had none. In contrast, using a feature‐based categorization, 1.7% EDs had a fully functional EDIS, 12.3% had basic, 32.1% had other, and 53.9% had none. In multivariable analysis, urban EDs were significantly more likely to have a fully functional or basic EDIS than were rural EDs. Pediatric EDs were significantly more likely than general EDs to have other EDIS. Conclusions: Despite more optimistic single‐response estimates, fewer than 2% of our nation’s EDs have a fully functional EDIS. EDs in urban areas and those specializing in the care of pediatric patients are more likely to support EDIS. Accurate and consistent EDIS adoption estimates are dependent on whether there are standardized EDIS definitions and classifications of features. To realize the potential value of EDIS for improved emergency care, we need to better understand the extent and correlates of the diffusion of this technology and increase emergency medicine engagement in national HIT policy‐making. Academic Emergency Medicine 2010; 17:536–544 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine     

Radiology Services in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs: A National Survey

OBJECTIVES: To determine who reads plain film radiographs, how quickly radiologists' interpretations are available, how many initial readings require correction, and how satisfied emergency physicians (EPs) are with radiology in emergency departments (EDs) with emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the chairs of all U.S. EM residencies, asking about EM radiology services. RESULTS: Of 120 sites surveyed, 97 (81%) responded. Respondents reported that, on weekday days, EM attendings or residents performed the radiograph interpretation used for clinical decision making at 66% of sites; on nights and weekends, EPs performed the clinically relevant readings at 79% of sites. Twenty-one percent of sites reported that no radiologist reviewed images before patients left the ED on nights and weekends. Only 39% of sites reported that all images were read within four hours on weekday days, and only 19% of sites reported readings within this time frame on nights and weekends. Median misinterpretation rates were reported as 1% on weekday days and 1.5% at other times. Overall, EPs were satisfied with their interactions with radiology at 63% of EDs. CONCLUSIONS: This study summarizes the perceptions of EPs regarding radiology services; the findings must be interpreted with caution, given the lack of external validation. Nevertheless, EPs report that many EM residency programs depend on EPs' interpretations of radiographs. Emergency physicians report that attending radiologists rarely read images on nights and weekends and that images are misread more frequently at these times. Although EPs were satisfied with many aspects of radiology, EPs expressed the most dissatisfaction with turnaround times and misreads.     

Practicing Emergency Physicians Report Performing Well on Most Emergency Medicine Milestones

Background

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System endorsed specialty-specific milestones as the foundation of an outcomes-based resident evaluation process. These milestones represent five competency levels (entry level to expert), and graduating residents will be expected to meet Level 4 on all 23 milestones. Limited validation data on these milestones exist. It is unclear if higher levels represent true competencies of practicing emergency medicine (EM) attendings.

Objective

Our aim was to examine how practicing EM attendings in academic and community settings self-evaluate on the new EM milestones.

Methods

An electronic self-evaluation survey outlining 9 of the 23 EM milestones was sent to a sample of practicing EM attendings in academic and community settings. Attendings were asked to identify which level was appropriate for them.

Results

Seventy-nine attendings were surveyed, with an 89% response rate. Sixty-one percent were academic. Twenty-three percent (95% confidence interval [CI] 20%−27%) of all responses were Levels 1, 2, or 3; 38% (95% CI 34%−42%) were Level 4; and 39% (95% CI 35%−43%) were Level 5. Seventy-seven percent of attendings found themselves to be Level 4 or 5 in eight of nine milestones. Only 47% found themselves to be Level 4 or 5 in ultrasound skills (p = 0.0001).

Conclusions

Although a majority of EM attendings reported meeting Level 4 milestones, many felt they did not meet Level 4 criteria. Attendings report less perceived competence in ultrasound skills than other milestones. It is unclear if self-assessments reflect the true competency of practicing attendings. The study design can be useful to define the accuracy, precision, and validity of milestones for any medical field.     

National study on the frequency, types, causes, and consequences of voluntarily reported emergency department medication errors

Background: Medication errors contribute to significant morbidity, mortality, and costs to the health system. Little is known about the characteristics of Emergency Department (ED) medication errors. Study Objective: To examine the frequency, types, causes, and consequences of voluntarily reported ED medication errors in the United States. Methods: A cross-sectional study of all ED errors reported to the MEDMARX system between 2000 and 2004. MEDMARX is an anonymous, confidential, de-identified, Internet-accessible medication error-reporting program designed to allow hospitals to report, track, and share error data in a standardized format. Results: There were 13,932 medication errors from 496 EDs analyzed. The error rate was 78 reports per 100,000 visits. Physicians were responsible for 24% of errors, nurses for 54%. Errors most commonly occurred in the administration phase (36%). The most common type of error was improper dose/quantity (18%). Leading causes were not following procedure/protocol (17%), and poor communication (11%), whereas contributing factors were distractions (7.5%), emergency situations (4.1%), and workload increase (3.4%). Computerized provider order entry caused 2.5% of errors. Harm resulted in 3% of errors. Actions taken as a result of the error included informing the staff member who committed the error (26%), enhancing communication (26%), and providing additional training (12%). Patients or family members were notified about medication errors 2.7% of the time. Conclusion: ED medication errors may be a result of the acute, crowded, and fast-paced nature of care. Further research is needed to identify interventions to reduce these risks and evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions.     

Airway management practices in emergency medicine residencies

The Core Content for Emergency Medicine (EM) recommends that all emergency physicians be trained to manage the airway, including administering paralytic agents for endotracheal intubation. This study analyzed compliance with the recommendations by reviewing airway management practices at EM residencies. All 96 EM residency directors were sent a 10-item survey characterizing airway management practices at residency-affiliated emergency departments (EDs). The 91 respondents (95%) represented residencies with 120 affiliated hospitals. Paralytic agents routinely were used during intubations in 114 of the EDs (95%). Forty-nine of the EDs (41%) never requested an anesthesiologist for intubations, and 8 EDs (7%) mandated anesthesiology presence during paralytic agent administration. The Department of Anesthesiology never performed quality assurance (QA) evaluations in at least 64 EDs (53%). The Department of Emergency Medicine performed QA checks less than two thirds of the time in at least 44 EDs (36%). The majority of EM residencies are complying with the Core Content recommendations by actively performing intubations using paralytic agents. Anesthesiologists are infrequently consulted in residency-affiliated EDs. Quality assurance of ED intubations is not rigorously monitored by emergency and anesthesiology departments.     

Observation of Emergency Medicine Residents at the Bedside: How Often Does It Happen?

Objective: To determine how often trainees in emergency medicine (EM) are observed while performing a history, a physical examination, or specific procedures. Methods: The 26 members of the National Consensus Group on Clinical Skills in Emergency Medicine affiliated with an EM residency program were asked to circulate a survey to their residents during February and March 1994. Twenty-one programs participated. surveying a total of 514 residents. The residents were asked how many times they had been observed by an attending physician while they performed a history, a physical examination. endotracheal intubation. or central vein catheterization during training. The residents also were asked about observation of specific components of the physical examination. such as the heart. lung, and genitourinary systems. Results: Three hundred nineteen residents (62%) responded to the survey. Thirteen percent of the residents reported that they had never been observed taking a history during training. During their PGYI training, 19% of the residents reported that they had never been observed taking a history, 42% had been observed one to three times, 255% had been observed four to 12 times. and 13% had been observed >12 times. Six percent of the residents reported that they had never been observed doing a physical examination during training. During their PGYI training, 10% of the residents had never been observed performing a physical examination, 38% had been observed one to three times. 34% had been observed four to 12 times, and 18% had been observed >12 times. Conclusions: Many residents report that they are infrequently observed performing histories and physical examinations during their EM training. with a significant number of residents reporting that they were never observed performing basic bedside clinical skills. More direct observation with trained faculty observers may provide an opportunity for better evaluation and remediation of bedside clinical skills.