A National Evaluation of Scholarly Activity Requirement in Osteopathic EM Residency Programs: Survey of EM Program Directors.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to determine the percentage of osteopathic emergency medicine (EM) residencies that require an original research project to meet the American Osteopathic Association requirement, describe the resources available to the residents and faculty members to complete their projects, and determine resident and faculty research productivity. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional online survey of program directors from osteopathic EM residency programs. Participants were asked about demographics and specifics related to their program's research curriculum, which included resources, outcomes, and challenges. RESULTS: The response rate was 48.21% (27/56) of program directors from EM residencies. The majority (82.77%) of respondents were from a community-based EM program, had a requirement that a research project be completed before graduation from residency (87.5%), and did not have a research associate program to assist in recruiting patients (83.33%). A physician research director was noted to lead the department in 53.57% of respondents, whereas 70.83% noted having a statistician on staff. A total of 2.91% of program faculty had received federal grant funding, and 13.88% had a research study indexed in PubMed. EM programs that had a physician-led research director were more likely to have core faculty with federal funding, articles indexed in PubMed, residents who submit their research for publication, and residents with competitive grants, as compared with programs without a research director. Program directors noted that analyzing data, designing a study, and generating a hypothesis were the biggest challenges to conducting research in the residency. CONCLUSIONS: Osteopathic EM residencies significantly differ from their allopathic counterparts in their research curriculum, capabilities, and outcomes.

Medical Degree Disparity Among Authors in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals.

CONTEXT: With the transition to a single accreditation system for graduate medical education, the scholarly activity among core faculty in osteopathic and allopathic residency programs has come under scrutiny. Currently, major differences in scholarly activity requirements exist between core faculty in obstetrics and gynecology residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and those accredited by the American Osteopathic Association. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a disparity between osteopathic and allopathic physicians among authors with original research published in 4 high-impact obstetrics and gynecology journals during 4 select years. METHODS: The authors reviewed Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Am J Obstet Gynecol), Fertility and Sterility (Fertil Steril), and Menopause for the degree designation of the first and senior (last) author of each original manuscript for the years of 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics and linear regression. RESULTS: In total, 3311 articles and 5909 authors were reviewed. Of these authors, 0.80% (47) had a DO degree. Of 1692 authors with dual advanced degrees, only 0.53% (9) had a DO degree. On subgroup analysis of each journal, 0.87% (13 of 1494) of identified authors in Obstet Gynecol, 1.03% (21 of 2038) in Am J Obstet Gynecol, 0.44% (9 of 2030) in Fertil Steril, and 2.20% (4 of 347) in Menopause were osteopathic physicians. During the years studied, no statistically significant trend could be established for first or senior author publication by osteopathic physicians over time, for all 4 journals or for any individual journal. CONCLUSION: Very few osteopathic physicians have served as either the first or the senior author in articles published in Obstet Gynecol, Am J Obstet Gynecol, Fertil Steril, or Menopause during the years studied, and no trend was seen for increased publication by osteopathic physicians in these journals over time.

Difference in R01 Grant Funding Among Osteopathic and Allopathic Emergency Physicians over the Last Decade.

INTRODUCTION: Receiving an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is regarded as a major accomplishment for the physician researcher and can be used as a means of scholarly activity for core faculty in emergency medicine (EM). However, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that a grant must be obtained for it to count towards a core faculty member's scholarly activity, while the American Osteopathic Association states that an application for a grant would qualify for scholarly activity whether it is received or not. The aim of the study was to determine if a medical degree disparity exists between those who successfully receive an EM R01 grant and those who do not, and to determine the publication characteristics of those recipients. METHODS: We queried the NIH RePORTER search engine for those physicians who received an R01 grant in EM. Degree designation was then determined for each grant recipient based on a web-based search involving the recipient's name and the location where the grant was awarded. The grant recipient was then queried through PubMed central for the total number of publications published in the decade prior to receiving the grant. RESULTS: We noted a total of 264 R01 grant recipients during the study period; of those who received the award, 78.03% were allopathic physicians. No osteopathic physician had received an R01 grant in EM over the past 10 years. Of those allopathic physicians who received the grant, 44.17% held a dual degree. Allopathic physicians had an average of 48.05 publications over the 10 years prior to grant receipt and those with a dual degree had 51.62 publications. CONCLUSION: Allopathic physicians comprise the majority of those who have received an R01 grant in EM over the last decade. These physicians typically have numerous prior publications and an advanced degree.

Correlation Between Scores on Weekly Quizzes and Performance on the Annual Resident In-Service Examination.

CONTEXT: Medical residency education relies heavily on the use of written and oral testing as a means of assessing a learner's knowledge acquisition. In the United States, osteopathic emergency medicine residents take an annual specialty-based resident in-service examination (RISE) for this purpose. Their performance on the RISE helps direct educators' approach to teaching and training. OBJECTIVES: To determine the correlative strength of residents' cumulative performance on a series of weekly in-house quizzes with their performance on the RISE. METHODS: In this prospective study, emergency medicine residents took a series of 15 quizzes between August 2013 and January 2014. The quizzes were administered using slides integrated with an audience-response system. Quizzes comprised questions gathered from various question banks and commercial test review resources specific to the specialty of emergency medicine. Effort was made to select questions covering topics tested on the RISE. Scores from each of the quizzes were recorded, and these data were analyzed for correlation with residents' scores on the RISE. RESULTS: Sixteen emergency medicine residents from all 4 postgraduate years participated in the study. For various reasons (vacation, illness, away rotations), not all 16 residents participated in each quiz. The mean participation rate over all 15 quizzes was 76.7%, with a mean quiz score of 57.8%. A correlation analysis was conducted between the achieved RISE score and the mean quiz score (excluding any quizzes not taken). Graphical analysis revealed a sufficiently linear relationship between the 2 variables, with no outliers. Both variables were normally distributed, as assessed by the Shapiro-Wilks test (P>.05). A strong positive correlation was found between RISE score and mean quiz score (r[14]=0.75; P=.001), with the mean quiz score over the quizzes taken explaining about 57% of the variance in the achieved RISE score. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study imply that performance on weekly didactic quizzes may be strongly predictive of RISE performance and as such tracking these data may provide insight to educators and learners as to the most effective direction of their educational efforts.

Osteopathic Physicians on the Editorial Boards of Major Medical Journals Over the Past 30 Years.

CONTEXT: With the recent merger of the American Osteopathic Association and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, new standards may be established for scholarly activity criteria and designation for each specialty. OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of osteopathic physicians on editorial boards in general and specialty medical journals and to compare the participation of osteopathic vs allopathic physicians and other health care researchers in editorial activities. METHODS: The number of osteopathic and allopathic physicians and other health care professionals serving as editor in chief, associate editor, editorial board member, emeritus editor, or in other editorial positions was examined in 8 major medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Annals of Surgery, Annals of Emergency Medicine, Annals of Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Pediatrics) published during the past 30 years. RESULTS: The number of editorial board positions increased during the past 30 years, with Annals of Surgery adding the most positions (64). When compared with allopathic physicians in all fields of medicine, the number of osteopathic physicians serving on an editorial board of a medical journal was significantly less (P<.001). When all editorial positions were combined, osteopathic physicians occupied 0.15% of all positions. CONCLUSION: A disparity exists between the numbers of osteopathic vs allopathic physicians in editorial positions in the core disciplines of medicine. Further investigation into the reasons why few osteopathic physicians serve in editorial roles is needed.