Resident Efficiency in a Pediatric Emergency Department

Objectives: To measure the hourly rate of patients evaluated and treated by resident physicians in an academic pediatric emergency department (PED) and examine differences in the rate by subspecialty and year of training. Methods: For all residents rotating in an academic, urban children's hospital PED, the rate of patients seen per hour over the course of their rotation was calculated using an electronic tracking system, EmSTAT, for calendar year 2000. Rates are reported as the mean number of patients seen per resident hour worked. Mean differences are reported for resident subspecialties (emergency medicine, pediatrics, and family practice) and postgraduate year (PGY1–PGY3), and subclass comparisons were made with an analysis of variance test with Tukey's post hoc analysis. Results: A total of 153 residents (63.4% pediatric, 18.9% family practice, and 17.7% emergency medicine) saw 24,414 patients during the study period. The makeup of the group by training year was as follows: PGY1, 20.9%; PGY2, 41.2%; and PGY3, 37.9%. For all residents, the mean rate was 1.02 patients seen per hour (pph). Significant differences in the mean number of patients seen per hour by subspecialty existed, with emergency medicine residents seeing a mean of 1.12 pph, pediatrics residents seeing 1.02 pph, and family practice residents seeing 0.93 pph (mean difference, p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Rates increased by year of training, with PGY1 seeing a mean of 0.95 pph, PGY2 seeing 0.99 pph, and PGY3 seeing 1.09 pph (mean difference, p < 0.05 for all comparisons except PGY1 vs. PGY2). Conclusions: Significant differences in the rate of patients evaluated and treated in the PED exist by resident subspecialty and year of training. Knowing these rates is helpful in evaluation of resident performance, because it allows comparison with peers. Additionally, such information may be useful for residency program evaluators to gauge the amount of patient exposure for residents.     

Evaluating the Effect of Emergency Residency Training on Productivity in the Emergency Department

Background

Resident productivity, defined as patients seen per unit time, is one measure that is used to assess the performance and educational progress of residents in the emergency department (ED). One published study suggested that emergency residency training (EM) does not improve productivity compared with that in other specialties, including internal medicine (IM).

Objectives

This study assesses how EM and IM trainees perform in the ED and illustrates how resident productivity changes through the academic year.

Methods

A retrospective review of attending physicians and residents working 8-h shifts in the higher acuity zone of a large-volume, tertiary, academic health care center was performed for July 2009, October 2009, January 2010, and April 2010. The total number of patients seen primarily and admitted during each shift was recorded. ED volume was approximated by the number of patients seen by the attending physician, and acuity was approximated by admission rate. A mixed model regression assessed the impact of year and type of residency training (e.g., EM1, EM2, IM1, and IM2), ED volume, and acuity on resident productivity (number of patients per shift). The study was granted waiver of informed consent by our institutional review board.

Results

We reviewed 936 shifts. After adjusting for acuity and ED volume, the EM1 group had a significant increase in patients per shift over the year, from 6.11 in July to 10.3 in April (p < 0.001). No other group increased productivity significantly.

Conclusions

The first EM training year leads to a significant change in productivity that separates EM from IM residents. This contradicts the previous assertion that non-EM residents have the same productivity as EM residents in the ED.     

Depression among Emergency Medicine Residents over an Academic Year

Objectives: To describe the frequency of depression among emergency medicine (EM) residents by month, gender, rotation type, postgraduate year (PGY), and number of hours worked.
Methods: This was a prospective, nonblinded, cohort study of consenting EM residents in a four-year, 51-resident EM residency program from July 2003 to June 2004. Participants received an anonymous monthly survey via Web site that consisted of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) and the resident's gender, PGY, number of hours worked in the previous week (≤40, 41–60, 61–80 and >80), and rotation type (EM, intensive care unit, non-EM clinical, or other). Residents were excluded from analysis if they did not complete at least one survey during each season. For each resident, the peak score for each three-month period was recorded and analyzed with a mixed-model analysis of variance to account for a repeated-measures effect.
Results: Fifty of 51 (98.0%) residents consented for participation. Nineteen (38%) were excluded because of incomplete data. The prevalence of depression was 12.1% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 7.5% to 19.0%; 15 of 124 scores). The women had numerically, but not statistically, significantly lower mean ± standard deviation CESD scores than the men (6.4 ± 6.8 vs. 8.7 ± 8.6, p = 1.0). There was no significant difference in mean CESD score by month, PGY, rotation type, or number of hours worked.
Conclusions: Season, number of hours worked, rotation type, PGY, and gender all failed to predict depression among EM residents in this single-center trial. The prevalence of depression was comparable to that of the general population.     

Prospective Evaluation of Emergency Medicine Instruction for Rotating First–postgraduate–year Residents

Objective: To determine whether either bedside teaching alone (group A) or bedside teaching with written course materials (group B) improved written examination scores, satisfaction with the rotation, or clinical grades of rotating PGY1 residents.
Methods: A prospective, controlled educational trial was conducted. Sixty–five PGY1 residents from diverse specialties rotated in the ED for one month over a ten–month study period, and were included in the study. The PGY1 residents were assigned to group by month of rotation. All the PGY1 residents received unstructured bedside teaching by emergency medicine (EM) residents and faculty. In addition, group B received written course materials on day 1.
Results: Mean posttest scores were higher than mean pretest scores for the interns considered as a whole (p < 0.0001), but mean pretest, posttest, and clinical grades were comparable across instructional groups. Mean satisfaction ratings were higher for group A than for group B (p < 0.015). The interns specializing in EM achieved higher mean test scores (p < 0.013) and clinical grades (p < 0.003) than did the interns specializing in another medical specialty.
Conclusion: Both instructional methods were associated with improved written test performance. Written course materials did not augment bedside teaching in terms of test scores, clinical grades, or satisfaction. with the rotation. At a university–based, high–volume ED, bedside teaching offers educational benefit to rotating PGY1 residents that may not be augmented by written course materials.     

Resident Service Hours in Emergency Medicine

Objective: The number of hours worked by residents in all specialties has become a controversial issue. Residents often are expected to competently conduct patient care activities and to take educational advantage of clinical experiences in spite of frequent fatigue and sleep deprivation. This survey of residency directors was designed to assess the scheduled clinical time for emergency medicine (EM) residents. Methods: A 13-question survey dealing with time commitments of EM residents was sent to the residency directors of all accredited EM residency programs in the United States in the fall of 1991. Residency directors were asked to indicate the number of shifts, hours, and days off per week; and the number of night shifts and weekend days off per month for each postgraduate year of residency training (PGY1-PGY4). Directors also were asked whether shifts were scheduled randomly or predictably with progression from days to nights with time off after nights. Results: Seventy of 71 (98.6% response rate) residency directors responded. Residents were scheduled for an average of 49.1 hours per week. Scheduled hours decreased from an average of 51.9 at the PGY1 level to an average of 44.5 at the PGY4 level. A similar progression with year of training was noted for scheduled night shifts/ month, days off/week, and weekend days off/month. A PGY1 trainee averaged 7.0 night shifts/month, 1.9 days off/week, and 3.0 weekend days off/month; while a PGY4 trainee averaged 5.3, 2.4, and 3.2, respectively. Only 40% of the directors reported predictable scheduling progressing from days to nights. Conclusion: Emergency medicine resident schedules, as reported by residency directors, fall well within current specialty-specific requirements and compare favorably with the reported numbers for other specialties. However, because large ranges in scheduling parameters were reported, the data may be of value to residency directors, residents, and prospective residents. Most programs did not report a predictable schedule progression of shifts.     

Direct Observation of Residents in the Emergency Department: A Structured Educational Program

Objectives:  The objective was to describe the implementation of a program of structured direct observation of emergency medicine (EM) residents during clinical shifts in the emergency department (ED).
Methods:  The authors developed a program in which an observer spent 4 to 5 hours with each resident, without intervening in the clinical encounters. A structured data form was developed to document the resident's performance in a number of defined clinical areas relevant to patient care and mastery of the core competencies. Individual strengths and weaknesses were noted, and the observer provided directed feedback at the end of the session.
Results:  Over an 18-month period, 32 EM residents were observed during their ED shifts. The sessions not only provided specific information on individual residents' performances, but also identified areas where the residency program curriculum could be enhanced and provided a means of assessing mastery of the core competencies. In addition, the program provided an opportunity to give detailed and timely directed feedback to residents. Both residents and attending staff found the sessions acceptable and useful.
Conclusions:  Implementation of a structured direct observation program was feasible and well received and provided insight into the strengths and weaknesses of residents both individually and as a group.     

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.     

RVU Ready? Preparing Emergency Medicine Resident Physicians in Documentation for an Incentive‐based Work Environment

Objectives:  The emergency medicine (EM) job market is increasingly focused on incentive-based reimbursement, which is largely based on relative value units (RVUs) and is directly related to documentation of patient care. Previous studies have shown a need to improve resident education in documentation. The authors created a focused educational intervention on billing and documentation practices to meet this identified need. The hypothesis of this study was that this educational intervention would result in an increase in RVUs generated by EM resident physicians and the average amount billed per patient.
Methods:  The authors used a quasi-experimental study design. An educational intervention included a 1-hour lecture on documentation and billing, biweekly newsletters, and case-specific feedback from the billing department for EM resident physicians. RVUs and charges generated per patient were recorded for all second- and third-year resident physicians for a 3-month period prior to the educational intervention and for a 3-month period following the intervention. Pre- and postintervention data were compared using Student's t-test and repeated-measures analysis of variance, as appropriate.
Results:  The evaluation and management (E/M) chart levels billed during each phase of the study were significantly different (p < 0.0001). The total number of RVUs generated per hour increased from 3.17 in the first phase to 3.71 in the second phase (p = 0.0001). During the initial 3-month phase, the average amount billed per patient seen by a second- or third-year resident was $282.82, which increased to $301.94 in the second phase (p = 0.0004).
Conclusions:  The educational intervention positively affected resident documentation resulting in greater RVUs/hour and greater billing performance in the study emergency department (ED).     

First-postgraduate-year Resident Clinical Time Use on Three Specialty Rotations

OBJECTIVE: To compare in-hospital time uses by first-postgraduate-year (PGY1) residents during rotations in emergency medicine (EM), internal medicine (IM), and surgery (S). This article reports the clinical components of residency time use. METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational study of the clinical activities of EM PGY1 residents was performed while the residents were on duty during the three specialty rotations. The activities were recorded by an observer using a log with predetermined categories for clinical activities. A time-blocked, convenience sample of resident shifts was observed for each service rotation. The sample was proportional to the total number of hours for which a PGY1 resident was expected to be in the hospital during a rotation on that service. No attempt was made to sample the same resident at all time periods or on all rotations. Proportions were compared by chi2; alpha = 0.0001. RESULTS: Twelve PGY1 residents were observed for a total of 166 hours on S, 156 hours on IM, and 120 hours on EM. These hourly amounts were representative of a typical two-week span of service on each rotation for the residents. On average, the residents spent 57% of their time on clinical or service-oriented activities. During EM and IM rotations, the residents spent most of their time performing clinical information gathering and engaging in case management and data synthesis (52% of total clinical effort). Within this category, residents on EM were more involved with case discussion and review of ancillary test results than on IM (34% vs 20% of time in this category). Conversely, proportionately less time in this category was devoted to documentation on the EM vs IM rotation (56% vs 80%; p < 0.0001). The greatest opportunity to perform procedures was on the S rotation (31% of total clinical time vs 6% for other specialties; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Awareness of the clinical activities performed on PGY1 rotations can help residency directors anticipate educational needs to balance their residents' experience. Since 29% and 42% of total clinical time on PGY1 EM and IM rotations, respectively, is focused on documentation, efforts to enhance charting skills and efficiency are warranted. Also, efforts to enhance PGY1 procedural experience outside of the S rotation appear warranted.     

Resident Educational Time Study: A Tale of Three Specialties

Abstract. Objectives : To compare amounts of in-hos-pital time use by PGY1 residents during rotations in emergency medicine (EM), internal medicine (IM), and surgery. This article reports the general study methodology and focuses on the educational aspects of residency time use. Methods : A cross-sectional, observational study of the activities of EM PGY1 residents was performed while the residents were on duty during the 3 specialty rotations. The activities were recorded by an observer using a log with predetermined categories for clinical/service, educational, and personal areas. A time-blocked, convenience sample of resident shifts was observed for each service rotation. The sample was proportional to the total number of hours for which a PGY1 resident was expected to be in the hospital during a rotation on that service. No attempt was made to sample the same resident at all time periods or on all rotations. Results : Twelve PGY1 residents were observed for a total of 166 hours on surgery, 156 hours on IM, and 120 hours on EM. These hourly amounts were representative of a typical 2-week span of service on each rotation for the residents. On average, the residents spent 57% of their time on clinical or service-oriented activities, 24% on educational activities, and 19% on personal activities. The proportions of time devoted to the 3 major areas were similar for the 3 rotations. In all 3 rotations, the largest proportion of time was spent on patient-focused education (81% to 92% of total educational time). Only 2% to 11% of educational time was devoted to self-education. Within the patient-focused education category, proportionately less resident time with faculty occurred on the surgery rotation than on the EM and IM rotations (18% vs 30% and 27%, respectively). Conclusion : The general breakdowns of clinical/service, educational, and personal time use by PGY1 residents are proportionately similar for the 3 service rotations. Patient-focused education is the primary mode of education for all services. In-hospital, self-education time is limited. Clinical teaching is largely by nonfaculty. The educational implications of these findings are discussed.     

Can Unannounced Standardized Patients Assess Professionalism and Communication Skills in the Emergency Department?

Objectives:  The authors piloted unannounced standardized patients (USPs) in an emergency medicine (EM) residency to test feasibility, acceptability, and performance assessment of professionalism and communication skills.
Methods:  Fifteen postgraduate year (PGY)-2 EM residents were scheduled to be visited by two USPs while working in the emergency department (ED). Multidisciplinary support was utilized to ensure successful USP introduction. Scores (% well done) were calculated for communication and professionalism skills using a 26-item, behaviorally anchored checklist. Residents' attitudes toward USPs and USP detection were also surveyed.
Results:  Of 27 USP encounters attempted, 17 (62%) were successfully completed. The detection rate was 44%. Eighty-three percent of residents who encountered a USP felt that the encounter did not hinder daily practice and did not make them uncomfortable (86%) or suspicious of patients (71%). Overall, residents received a mean score of 60% for communication items rated "well done" (SD ± 28%, range = 23%–100%) and 53% of professionalism items "well done" (SD ± 20%, range = 23%-85%). Residents' communication skills were weakest for patient education and counseling (mean = 43%, SD ± 31%), compared with information gathering (68%, SD ± 36% and relationship development (62%, SD ± 32%). Scores of residents who detected USPs did not differ from those who had not.
Conclusions:  Implementing USPs in the ED is feasible and acceptable to staff. The unpredictability of the ED, specifically resident schedules, accounted for most incomplete encounters. USPs may represent a new way to assess real-time resident physician performance without the need for faculty resources or the bias introduced by direct observation.     

Emergency Medicine Resident Interpretation of Pediatric Radiographs

Objective: To examine the concordance of pediatric radiograph interpretation between emergency medicine residents (EMRs) and radiologists.
Methods: A prospective, observational study was performed in a university pediatric ED with an annual census of 60,000 visits. Radiographs ordered by EMRs from December 1993 through October 1994 were initially interpreted solely by the EMR, with subsequent unmasked final review by attending radiology staff. Misinterpreted radiographs were placed into 3 categories. The groupings included overreads , underreads with no change in treatment, and underreads that required a change in treatment.
Results: A total of 415 radiographs were interpreted by PGY1–3 residents. Overall concordance was found for 371 radiographs (89.4%). There were 44 misinterpretations (10.6%), with 24 (5.78%) overreads, 13 (3.13%) underreads, and 7 (1.69%) underreads that required follow-up interventions. Misinterpretations were similar for the different levels of training:

The 5 most frequently ordered radiographs were chest (28%), ankle (7%), foot (6%), wrist (5%), and hand (5%). The most frequently misinterpreted radiographs were sinus, foot, shoulder, facial, and hand.
Conclusion: 89.4% of all the radiographs interpreted by PGY1–3 residents were read correctly. Only 1.69% of the misinterpreted radiographs led to a change in management. Level of training did not significantly correlate with radiograph misinterpretation rates.     

General Competencies Are Intrinsic to Emergency Medicine Training: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVES: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has promulgated six areas called General Competencies (GCs) that residency programs are required to evaluate. The authors sought to determine if these domains were an intrinsic part of emergency medicine (EM) residency training by using a global assessment evaluation device. METHODS: This was an observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study that compared GC acquisition between first-, second-, and third-year (EM1, EM2, and EM3) residents. Five postgraduate year (PGY) 1 to PGY 3 allopathic EM programs in Michigan participated. A global assessment form using a 1 through 9 ordinal scale with 86 scoring items was given to program directors for each resident in their programs. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the means between EM1, EM2, and EM3 scores. RESULTS: Five EM programs evaluated 150 residents. The GC scores were as follows: Patient Care: EM1 4.92, EM2 5.79, and EM3 6.40; Medical Knowledge: EM1 4.90, EM2 5.80, and EM3 6.46; Practice-based Learning and Improvement: EM1 4.60, EM2 5.48, and EM3 6.16; Interpersonal and Communication Skills: EM1 4.99, EM2 5.39, and EM3 6.01; Professionalism: EM1 5.43, EM2 5.68, and EM3 6.27; Systems-based Practice: EM1 4.80, EM2 5.48, and EM3 6.21. ANOVA showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) for all GCs. CONCLUSIONS: EM residents from several residency programs showed statistically significant progressive acquisition of the ACGME GCs using a global assessment device. This suggests that the GCs may be an intrinsic component in the training of EM residents.     

Pilot Study on Documentation Skills: Is There Adequate Training in Emergency Medicine Residency?

Background: Thorough and accurate documentation in the medical record is important, and documentation skills should be an integral component of emergency medicine (EM) residency training. Study Objective: We sought to study the documentation skills of EM residents as they relate to emergency department (ED) reimbursement. Methods: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study. We reviewed all charts of patients presenting to the adult ED during a 2-week period. We compared three groups: patients seen primarily by an EM resident, patients seen primarily by a physician assistant (PA), and patients seen primarily by an attending emergency physician. Outcome measures were the incidence of downcodes and dollars lost to downcodes in all groups. Results: There were 212 patients in the resident group, 683 patients in the PA group, and 437 patients in the attending group. There were 12 downcodes (5.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.96–9.70) in the resident group, 10 downcodes (1.5%, 95% CI 0.70–2.68) in the PA group, and 17 downcodes (3.9%, 95% CI 2.28–6.14) in the attending group (p = 0.002). The mean dollar lost per patient seen in the resident group was $3.21 (95% CI 1.41–5.00); $0.91 (95% CI 0.33–1.49) in the PA group; and $2.23 (95% CI 1.17–3.28) in the attending group (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Charts documented primarily by EM residents were more likely to be downcoded than charts documented primarily by PAs or ED attendings. This downcode rate resulted in a greater loss of revenue in the resident group. We believe this represents an area for improvement in EM residency education.     

Procedural Competency in Emergency Medicine: The Current Range of Resident Experience

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the recorded range of procedures tracked by emergency medicine (EM) programs, and to determine whether differences in procedural experience occur in various types of residency or hospital settings. METHODS: The program directors of 112 approved EM programs were asked to send actual procedure logs. The requested information included the average total number of a given procedure per graduating resident, for all procedures that were tracked. Data were categorized by program format, hospital type, and ED volume. To assess the global procedural experience among programs, a set of 22 "index procedures" were identified; all procedures the EM residency review committee (RRC-EM) required to be tracked were included in this set. The means per graduating resident for each index procedure were added together to generate a "mean index procedure sum" (MIPS) per graduating resident for each residency program. These MIPSs for a residency were then compared by program format, hospital type, and ED volume. A similar analysis was performed for all resuscitations, and a "mean index resuscitation sum" (MIRS) per graduating resident was generated. RESULTS: An overall response rate of 82% was achieved; a number of programs had not graduated a residency class and were not included. Sixty-five of 85 eligible programs (76%) provided procedural data. The average number of a given procedure per graduating resident (95% CI in parentheses) for selected procedures is as follows: oral intubation 65 (46 to 85), intubation unspecified 75 (62 to 87), nasal intubation 6 (4 to 9), cricothyroidotomy 2 (1 to 2), subclavian catheter 23 (16 to 30), chest tubes 17 (14 to 20), intraosseous line 2 (1 to 3), thoracotomy 3 (2 to 5), and vaginal deliveries 17 (13 to 21). The only statistically significant differences in subgroup comparisons were in diagnostic peritoneal lavage, trauma resuscitations, and pediatric medical resuscitations when compared by postgraduate year format, and intubation-unspecified and cricothyroidotomy when compared by hospital type. There was no statistically significant difference when MIPSs were compared by format, hospital type, or ED volume. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study of the range of EM resident procedure experience across the spectrum of EM residency types and settings. Overall, there are few statistically significant differences in procedure experience among different program formats. Similar experiences are recorded in a variety of different hospital types or ED volumes. However, some programs report very limited EM resident experience with selected critical procedures. There is a large variation in the types and numbers of procedures recorded by EM programs.     

The Psychological Effects of a Four-week Emergency Medicine Rotation on Residents in Training

Objective: To prospectively evaluate psychological stress reactions among residents in an emergency medicine (EM) rotation during a 4-week period.
Methods: Pre- and postrotation psychological distress levels were assessed over a 4-week EM rotation. Subjects were evaluated by several psychometric measures. These included the assessment of anxiety, depressive, and other psychological symptoms by the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the occurrence of traumatic anxiety via the Dissociative Experience Scale (DES). Also assessed were the Impact of Events Scale and the Holmes Social Readjustment Ratings Scale (Holmes), a baseline life-change measure. Demographic data were obtained. The study occurred in a university-affiliated teaching hospital ED. The 45 EM residents and 27 non-EM residents were analyzed as a group, followed by subgroup analysis comparing EM vs non-EM residents.
Results: An increase in psychological distress over the 4-week rotation was found in the non-EM group, but not in the EM group. For the non-EM residents, all 10 BSI scales worsened and 3 of 4 DES scales worsened (p = 0.002), indicative of increased psychological distress. In contrast, analysis of the 45 EM residents showed improvement in 8 of 10 BSI scales and 3 of 4 DES scales (p = 0.057).
Conclusion: A significant increase in psychologic distress was found among the non-EM residents during an EM rotation. The EM residents showed a trend for a decrease in psychological distress over the same 4-week period.     

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.