What Should Students and Trainees Be Taught About Turfing and Where Patients Belong?

Turfing is a colloquialism that refers to what clinicians do to patients whose needs do not fit neatly and tidily into typical clinical placement protocols, especially during inpatient admissions from a hospital's emergency department. This term and this practice are both clinically and ethically problematic because a patient is rarely, if ever, "turfed" to their advantage. Ethically speaking, turfing constitutes deferral of responsibility for a patient's admission or care to colleagues. This article suggests when and under which circumstances it is clinically and ethically appropriate to defer a patient's care and suggests why turfing happens despite its negative influence on both physicians and patients.

Ongoing and Focused Provider Performance Evaluations in Emergency Medicine: Current Practices and Modified Delphi to Guide Future Practice.

The Joint Commission requires ongoing and focused provider performance evaluations (OPPEs/FPPEs). The authors aim to describe current approaches in emergency medicine (EM) and identify consensus-based best practice recommendations. An online survey was distributed to leaders in EM to gain insight into current practices. A modified Delphi approach was then used to develop consensus to recommend best practice. A variety of strategies are currently in use for OPPE/FPPE. "Peer reviewed cases with opportunity for improvement" was identified as a preferred metric for OPPE. Although the preference was for use of peer review in OPPE, a consistent and standard adoption of robust internal care review processes is needed to establish expected norms. National benchmarking is not available currently. This was a limited survey of self-identified leaders, and there is an opportunity for additional engagement of leaders in EM to identify a unified approach that appropriately relates to patient outcomes.

The Core Competencies for General Orthopaedic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: With the changing delivery of orthopaedic surgical care, there is a need to define the knowledge and competencies that are expected of an orthopaedist providing general and/or acute orthopaedic care. This article provides a proposal for the knowledge and competencies needed for an orthopaedist to practice general and/or acute care orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: Using the modified Delphi method, the General Orthopaedic Competency Task Force consisting of stakeholders associated with general orthopaedic practice has proposed the core knowledge and competencies that should be maintained by orthopaedists who practice emergency and general orthopaedic surgery. RESULTS: For relevancy to clinical practice, 2 basic sets of competencies were established. The assessment competencies pertain to the general knowledge needed to evaluate, investigate, and determine an overall management plan. The management competencies are generally procedural in nature and are divided into 2 groups. For the Management 1 group, the orthopaedist should be competent to provide definitive care including assessment, investigation, initial or emergency care, operative or nonoperative care, and follow-up. For the Management 2 group, the orthopaedist should be competent to assess, investigate, and commence timely non-emergency or emergency care and then either transfer the patient to the appropriate subspecialist's care or provide definitive care based on the urgency of care, exceptional practice circumstance, or individual's higher training. This may include some higher-level procedures usually performed by a subspecialist, but are consistent with one's practice based on experience, practice environment, and/or specialty interest. CONCLUSIONS: These competencies are the first step in defining the practice of general orthopaedic surgery including acute orthopaedic care. Further validation and discussion among educators, general orthopaedic surgeons, and subspecialists will ensure that these are relevant to clinical practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These competencies provide many stakeholders, including orthopaedic educators and orthopaedists, with what may be the minimum knowledge and competencies necessary to deliver acute and general orthopaedic care. This document is the first step in defining a practice-based standard for training programs and certification groups.

Initial Validity Analysis of the American Board of Emergency Medicine Enhanced Oral Examination.

OBJECTIVES: The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) has introduced a new testing format for the oral certification examination (OCE): the enhanced oral or "eOral" format. The purpose of this study was to perform initial validity analyses of the eOral format. The two hypotheses were: 1) the case content in the eOral format was sufficiently similar to clinical practice and 2) the eOral case materials were sufficiently similar to clinical practice. The eOral and traditional formats were compared for these characteristics. METHODS: This was a prospective survey study. The survey was administered as a voluntary postexamination activity at the end of the 2015 spring (April 25-27) and fall (October 10-13) ABEM OCEs. The survey is a routine part of the ABEM oral examination experience. For 2015, two additional questions were added to gauge the similarity of the eOral format to clinical practice. Validity was defined by content and substantive elements within Messick's model of construct validity as well as portions of Kane's validity model. RESULTS: Of the 1,746 physicians who took the oral examination, 1,380 physicians (79.0%) completed all or part of the study survey questions. The majority of respondents agreed the patient presentations in the cases were similar (strongly agreed or agreed) to cases seen in clinical practice, in both the traditional cases (95.1%) and the eOral cases (90.1%). Likewise, the majority of respondents answered that the case materials (e.g., laboratory, radiographs) were similar (strongly agreed or agreed) to what they encounter in clinical practice, both in the traditional format (85.8%) and in the eOral cases (93.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Most emergency physicians reported that the types of cases tested in the traditional and eOral formats were similar to cases encountered in clinical practice. In addition, most physicians found the case materials to be similar to what is seen in clinical practice. This study provides early validity evidence for the eOral format.

Systems-based practice: the sixth core competency.

Systems-Based Practice (SBP) is the sixth competency defined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project. Specifically, SBP requires "Residents [to] demonstrate an awareness of and responsiveness to the larger context and system of health care and the ability to effectively call on system resources to provide care that is of optimal value." This competency can be divided into four subcompetencies, all of which are integral to training emergency medicine (EM) physicians: resources, providers, and systems; cost-appropriate care; delivery systems; and patient advocacy. In March 2002, the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD-EM) convened a consensus conference to assist residency directors in modifying the SBP competency specific for EM. The Consensus Group modified the broad ACGME definition for SBP into EM-specific goals and objectives for residency training in SBP. The primary assessment methods from the Toolbox of Assessment Methods were also identified for SBP. They are direct observation, global ratings, 360-degree evaluations, portfolio assessment, and testing by both oral and written exams. The physician tasks from the Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine that are most relevant to SBP are out-of-hospital care, modifying factors, legal/professional issues, diagnostic studies, consultation and disposition, prevention and education, multitasking, and team management. Suggested EM residency curriculum components for SBP are already in place in most residency programs, so no additional resources would be required for their implementation. These include: emergency medical services and administrative rotations, directed reading, various interdisciplinary and hospital committee participation, continuous quality improvement project participation, evidence-based medicine instruction, and various didactic experiences, including follow-up, interdisciplinary, and case conferences. With appropriate integration and evaluation of this competency into training programs, it is likely that future generations of physicians and patients will reap the benefits of an educational system that is based on well-defined outcomes and a more systemic view of health care.