Pelvic ultrasonography and length of stay in the ED: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: We compared emergency physician-performed pelvic ultrasonography (EPPU) with radiology department-performed pelvic ultrasonography (RPPU) in emergency department (ED) female patients requiring pelvic ultrasonography and their outcomes in relation to ED length of stay, ED readmission, and alternative diagnosis, within a 14-day follow-up period. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of female patients of reproductive age who required either an EPPU or RPPU for their ED evaluation. We hypothesized that patients receiving EPPU would have a length of stay reduction greater than or equal to 60 minutes, as compared with RPPU. Statistical analyses included an independent-samples t test and multivariate regression modeling to control for factors associated with ED LOS. RESULTS: Eighteen resident physicians performed EPPU, with 15 attending physicians supervising. Forty-eight patients received only EPPU, and 84 patients received only RPPU. In univariate analysis, those who received EPPU had an ED LOS 162 minutes less than those who received RPPU (95% confidence interval, 106-209 minutes). In multivariate analysis controlling for gynecologist consultation, disposition, and pregnancy status, patients who received EPPU had an ED LOS reduction of 108 minutes when compared with RPPU (95% confidence interval, 38-166 minutes). Five patients (10%) who had received EPPU and were discharged from the ED returned to the ED within 2 weeks, but none had alternative diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EPPU had statistically and clinically significant reductions in ED LOS, even when controlling for disposition, gynecologist consultation in the ED, and pregnancy status. No patients in the study had an alternative diagnosis within 2 weeks of EPPU.

Which Applicant Factors Predict Success in Emergency Medicine Training Programs? A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Program directors (PDs) in emergency medicine (EM) receive an abundance of applications for very few residency training spots. It is unclear which selection strategies will yield the most successful residents. Many authors have attempted to determine which items in an applicant's file predict future performance in EM. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this scoping review is to examine the breadth of evidence related to the predictive value of selection factors for performance in EM residency. METHODS: The authors systematically searched four databases and websites for peer-reviewed and gray literature related to EM admissions published between 1992 and February 2019. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for articles that met the inclusion criteria, according to the scoping review study protocol. The authors included studies if they specifically examined selection factors and whether those factors predicted performance in EM residency training in the United States. RESULTS: After screening 23,243 records, the authors selected 60 for full review. From these, the authors selected 15 published manuscripts, one unpublished manuscript, and 11 abstracts for inclusion in the review. These studies examined the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), Standardized Letters of Evaluation, Medical Student Performance Evaluation, medical school attended, clerkship grades, membership in honor societies, and other less common factors and their association with future EM residency training performance. CONCLUSIONS: The USMLE was the most common factor studied. It unreliably predicts clinical performance, but more reliably predicts performance on licensing examinations. All other factors were less commonly studied and, similar to the USMLE, yielded mixed results.