Social Media Bridges the Training Gap Between Match Day and Internship With ACGME Milestone-based Clinical Case Curriculum.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to bridge the relative educational gap for newly matched emergency medicine preinterns between Match Day and the start of internship by implementing an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestone (ACGME)-based virtual case curriculum over the social media platform Slack. METHODS: We designed a Milestone-based curriculum of 10 emergency department clinical cases and used Slack to implement it. An instructor was appointed for each participating institution to lead the discussion and encourage collaboration among preinterns. Pre- and postcurriculum surveys utilized 20 statements adapted from the eight applicable Milestones to measure the evolution of preintern self-reported perceived preparedness (PP) as well as actual clinical knowledge (CK) performance on a case-based examination. RESULTS: A total of 11 institutions collaborated and 151 preinterns were contacted, 127 of whom participated. After participating in the Slack intern curriculum (SIC), preinterns reported significant improvements in PP regarding multiple Milestone topics. They also showed improved CK regarding the airway management Milestone based on examination performance. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of our SIC may ease the difficult transition between medical school and internship for emergency medicine preinterns. Residency leadership and medical school faculty will benefit from knowledge of preintern PP, specifically of their perceived strengths and weaknesses, because this information can guide curricular focus at the end of medical school and beginning of internship. Limitations of this study include variable participation and a high attrition rate. Further studies will address the utility of such a virtual curriculum for preinterns and for rotating medical students who have been displaced from clinical rotations during the novel coronavirus pandemic.

Comparison of State Medical Licensing Board Disclosures Regarding Resident Performance for United States Allopathic, Osteopathic, and Foreign Medical Graduates.

CONTEXT: While recent streamlining of the graduate medical education process signals an important change from the traditional dichotomy between doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) and US-trained doctors of medicine (USMDs), this new uniformity does not continue into the process for licensure, including state medical licensing verification of training (VOT) forms for DOs, MDs, and foreign medical graduates (FMGs). Wide variability remains. OBJECTIVE: To document the differences in the performance metrics program that directors are required to disclose to state medical licensing boards for DOs and FMGs compared with USMDs. METHODS: VOT forms were collected from all osteopathic and allopathic licensing boards for all US states, Washington DC, and US territories. The authors then reviewed VOT forms for questions pertaining to trainee performance only in states where VOT forms differed for DOs, USMDs, and FMGs. Licensing board questions were categorized as relating to disciplinary action, documents placed on file, resident actions, and nondisciplinary actions by the program. RESULTS: Fifty-six states and territories were included in the study (50 US states; Washington, DC; and 5 US territories). Most states and territories (46; 82.1%) used the same VOT form for DOs and USMDs. All states and territories except New York used the same form for FMGs and USMDs (55; 98.2%). Of the 14 states with an osteopathic board, Nevada used Federation Credentials Verification Service (FCVS) for DOs only, and 8 states used a unique osteopathic VOT form. Of these 8 osteopathic boards, 3 VOT forms did not ask any questions regarding resident performance during training. Of the remaining 5 forms, all asked about disciplinary actions. Ten states and 1 territory (US Virgin Islands) required the FCVS for both USMDs and FMGs, but not for DOs, while New York required FCVS only for FMGs. Nevada required FCVS only for DOs. CONCLUSION: Although VOT requirements for FMGs and USMDs were mostly the same within states, performance metric question sets varied greatly from state to state and within states for osteopathic vs allopathic licensing boards. Implementation of a standardized VOT form for all applicants that includes academic performance metrics may help ensure that medical licensure is granted to all physicians who demonstrate academic competency during training, regardless of their degree.

Mandated State Medical Licensing Board Disclosures Regarding Resident Performance.

BACKGROUND: State medical licensing boards ask program directors (PDs) to complete verification of training (VOT) forms for licensure. While residency programs use Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies, there is no uniform process or set of metrics that licensing boards use to ascertain if academic competency was achieved. OBJECTIVE: We determined the performance metrics PDs are required to disclose on state licensing VOT forms. METHODS: VOT forms for allopathic medical licensing boards for all 50 states, Washington, DC, and 5 US territories were obtained via online search and reviewed. Questions were categorized by disciplinary action (investigated, disciplined, placed on probation, expelled, terminated); documents placed on file; resident actions (leave of absence, request for transfer, unexcused absences); and non-disciplinary actions (remediation, partial or no credit, non-renewal, non-promotion, extra training required). Three individuals reviewed all forms independently, compared results, and jointly resolved discrepancies. A fourth independent reviewer confirmed all results. RESULTS: Most states and territories (45 of 56) accept the Federation Credentials Verification Service (FCVS), but 33 states have their own VOT forms. Ten states require FCVS use. Most states ask questions regarding probation (43), disciplinary action (41), and investigation (37). Thirty-four states and territories ask about documents placed on file, 36 ask about resident actions, and 7 ask about non-disciplinary actions. Eight states' VOT forms ask no questions regarding resident performance. CONCLUSIONS: Among the states and territories, there is great variability in VOT forms required for allopathic physicians. These forms focus on disciplinary actions and do not ask questions PDs use to assess resident performance.

Training in Emergency Obstetrics: A Needs Assessment of U.S. Emergency Medicine Program Directors.

INTRODUCTION: Obstetrical emergencies are a high-risk yet infrequent occurrence in the emergency department. While U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residency graduates are required to perform 10 low-risk normal spontaneous vaginal deliveries, little is known about how residencies prepare residents to manage obstetrical emergencies. We sought to profile the current obstetrical training curricula through a survey of U.S. training programs. METHODS: We sent a web-based survey covering the four most common obstetrical emergencies (pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), shoulder dystocia, and breech presentation) through email invitations to all program directors (PD) of U.S. EM residency programs. The survey focused on curricular details as well as the comfort level of the PDs in the preparation of their graduating residents to treat obstetrical emergencies and normal vaginal deliveries. RESULTS: Our survey had a 55% return rate (n=105/191). Of the residencies responding, 75% were in the academic setting, 20.2% community, 65% urban, and 29.8% suburban, and the obstetrical curricula were 2-4 weeks long occurring in post-graduate year one. The most common teaching method was didactics (84.1-98.1%), followed by oral cases for pre-eclampsia (48%) and PPH (37.2%), and homemade simulation for shoulder dystocia (37.5%) and breech delivery (33.3%). The PDs' comfort about residency graduate skills was highest for normal spontaneous vaginal delivery, pre-eclampsia, and PPH. PDs were not as comfortable about their graduates' skill in handling shoulder dystocia or breech delivery. CONCLUSION: Our survey found that PDs are less comfortable in their graduates' ability to perform non-routine emergency obstetrical procedures.

A suggested emergency medicine boot camp curriculum for medical students based on the mapping of Core Entrustable Professional Activities to Emergency Medicine Level 1 milestones.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of students rank Emergency Medicine (EM) as a top specialty choice, requiring medical schools to provide adequate exposure to EM. The Core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for Entering Residency by the Association of American Medical Colleges combined with the Milestone Project for EM residency training has attempted to standardize the undergraduate and graduate medical education goals. However, it remains unclear as to how the EPAs correlate to the milestones, and who owns the process of ensuring that an entering EM resident has competency at a certain minimum level. Recent trends establishing specialty-specific boot camps prepare students for residency and address the variability of skills of students coming from different medical schools. OBJECTIVE: Our project's goal was therefore to perform a needs assessment to inform the design of an EM boot camp curriculum. Toward this goal, we 1) mapped the core EPAs for graduating medical students to the EM residency Level 1 milestones in order to identify the possible gaps/needs and 2) conducted a pilot procedure workshop that was designed to address some of the identified gaps/needs in procedural skills. METHODS: In order to inform the curriculum of an EM boot camp, we used a systematic approach to 1) identify gaps between the EPAs and EM milestones (Level 1) and 2) determine what essential and supplemental competencies/skills an incoming EM resident should ideally possess. We then piloted a 1-day, three-station advanced ABCs procedure workshop based on the identified needs. A pre-workshop test and survey assessed knowledge, preparedness, confidence, and perceived competence. A post-workshop survey evaluated the program, and a posttest combined with psychomotor skills test using three simulation cases assessed students' skills. RESULTS: Students (n=9) reported increased confidence in the following procedures: intubation (1.5-2.1), thoracostomy (1.1-1.9), and central venous catheterization (1.3-2) (a three-point Likert-type scale, with 1= not yet confident/able to perform with supervision to 3= confident/able to perform without supervision). Psychomotor skills testing showed on average, 26% of students required verbal prompting with performance errors, 48% with minor performance errors, and 26% worked independently without performance errors. All participants reported: 1) increased knowledge and confidence in covered topics and 2) overall satisfaction with simulation experience. CONCLUSION: Mapping the Core EPAs for Entering Residency to the EM milestones at Level 1 identifies educational gaps for graduating medical students seeking a career in EM. Educators designing EM boot camps for medical students should consider these identified gaps, procedures, and clinical conditions during the development of a core standardized curriculum.