Is boarding compromising our residents' education? A national survey of emergency medicine program directors.

Background: Boarding patients in the emergency department (ED) potentially affects resident education. Program director (PD) perceptions of the impact of boarding on their trainees have not been previously described. Methods: We surveyed a cross-sectional convenience sample of emergency medicine PDs using a mixed-methods approach to explore their perceptions of how boarding has affected their residents' training. Descriptive data were reported as percentages and differences were calculated using Pearson's chi-square test, with p < 0.05 considered significant. A framework model was used to qualitatively analyze free-text responses. Results: A total of 170 responses were collected, for a response rate of 63%. Most respondents felt that boarding had at least some effect on resident education with 29%, 35%, 18%, and 12% noting "a little," "a moderate amount," "a lot," and "a great deal," respectively, and 5% noting "no effect at all." Respondents perceived a negative impact of boarding on resident education and training, with 80% reporting a "somewhat" or "extremely negative" effect, 18% feeling neutral, and 2% noting a "somewhat positive" effect. Most noted a "somewhat" or "extremely negative" effect on resident education in managing ED throughput (70%) and high patient volumes (66%). Fifty-four percent noted a "somewhat" or "extremely negative" impact on being involved in the initial workup of undifferentiated patients. Thirty-two percent saw a "somewhat" or "extremely positive" effect on learning the management of critically ill patients. Qualitative analysis of challenges, mitigation strategies, and resident feedback emphasized the lack of exposure to managing departmental patient flow, impact on bedside teaching, and need for flexibility in resident staffing. Conclusions: Most PDs agree that boarding negatively affects resident education and identify several strategies to mitigate the impact. These findings can help inform future interventions to optimize resident learning in the complex educational landscape of high ED boarding.

Differences in emergency medicine resident procedural reporting by race and ethnicity.

Background: The recruitment, retention, and training of physicians from groups underrepresented in medicine (UiM) is critically important to the practice of emergency medicine (EM). Studies across specialties have demonstrated disparities in operative experiences among UiM resident learners who are UiM; however, there are limited data on procedural disparities in EM. Objective: We sought to quantify the association between racial and ethnic identities that are UiM and the number of procedures reported among EM residents. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of procedural differences by UiM status (using self-identified race and ethnicity) among graduating EM residents at nine training programs over a 10-year period. Sites were selected to ensure diversity of program length, program type, and geography. Data from residents in combined training programs, those who did not complete their full training at that institution, and those with missing data or electing not to report race/ethnicity were excluded. We calculated median and interquartile ranges for each procedure by UiM status. We conducted multivariable regression analyses accounting for UiM status, gender, and site as well as a sensitivity analysis excluding values >3 standard deviations from the mean for each procedure. Results: We collected data from 988 total residents, with 718 (73%) being non-UiM, 204 (21%) being UiM, 48 (5%) electing not to specific race/ethnicity, and 18 (2%) missing race/ethnicity data. While unadjusted data demonstrated a difference between UiM and non-UiM resident numbers across several procedures, there were no significant differences in procedures reported after accounting for gender and site in the primary or sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: We did not identify a statistically significant difference in reported procedures between UiM and non-UiM residents in EM. Future work should include qualitative investigations of UiM resident experience surrounding procedures as well as mixed-methods studies to examine how these data interact.

Trends in nursing feedback for emergency medicine residents: A mixed-methods survey analysis of national practices.

Background: Feedback is critical for physician development. Multisource feedback is especially important in a team-based specialty such as emergency medicine (EM) and is required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Nursing assessments provide a unique perspective, but little is known about the current national patterns of their collection and use in EM. Methods: We surveyed EM program directors using a mixed-methods approach to explore the use of nursing assessment of EM residents. Descriptive data were reported as absolute numbers and percentages. An adjunct analysis of free-text responses was done using the framework method. Results: The response rate for our survey was 63% (190 responses), of which 84% currently collect nursing feedback. Respondents from 94% of programs agreed that nursing feedback is useful in assessing professionalism and respondents from 92% of programs agreed that nursing feedback is useful in assessing communication and interpersonal skills, while 44% agreed that it is useful in informing resident medical knowledge. Forty-two percent reported that nursing feedback did not directly influence residents' progression through their training, while 2% indicated that such feedback played a significant role in leading to dismissal or probation. The majority of programs (64%) that do not collect feedback from nurses have done so in the past and hope to do so in the future. Qualitative analysis revealed themes of logistic challenges with data collection, concern regarding quality of feedback, and retributive or gender-disparate feedback. Conclusions: Nursing assessments of EM residents were collected by most responding programs and majority of those who do not collect them presently wish to do so in the future. They were considered particularly useful in the assessment of interpersonal skills, communication, and professionalism. However, lack of uniform methods for collecting assessment that meaningfully informs resident development and progression represents a challenge and direction for future inquiry.

Hemothorax after sneezing.

Acute hemothorax is generally known to be a sequela of trauma to the chest, rupture of aortic aneurysm, or aortic dissection. Other causes of hemothorax have been attributed to iatrogenic, vascular, neoplastic, coagulopathy, or infectious processes. Although there has been a single report of spontaneous rupture of intercostal artery after coughing, there have been no reports of the same from sneezing. This rare presentation highlights the importance of a full evaluation for patients who present with viral symptoms such as sneezing or coughing along with a complaint of chest pain because massive hemothorax can be life-threatening.

Beyond diversity and inclusion: Developing a research agenda for anti-racism in emergency medicine education.

Background: Addressing racism in emergency medicine education is vital for providing optimal training and assessment of physicians in the specialty, developing physicians with the skills necessary to advocate for their patients, and recruiting and retaining a diverse group of physicians. To form a prioritized research agenda, the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) conducted a consensus conference at the annual meeting in May 2022 on addressing racism in emergency medicine, which included a subgroup on education. Methods: The education workgroup worked on summarizing the current literature on addressing racism in emergency medicine education, identifying critical knowledge gaps, and creating a consensus-driven research agenda for addressing racism in emergency medicine education. We used a nominal group technique and modified Delphi to develop priority questions for research. We then distributed a pre-conference survey to conference registrants to rate priority areas for research. During the consensus conference, group leaders provided an overview and background describing the rationale for the preliminary research question list. Attendees were then involved in discussions to help modify and develop research questions. Results: Nineteen questions were initially selected by the education workgroup as potential areas for research. The education workgroup's next round of consensus building resulted in a consensus of ten questions to be included in the pre-conference survey. No questions in the pre-conference survey reached consensus. After robust discussion and voting by workgroup members and attendees at the consensus conference, six questions were determined to be priority research areas. Conclusions: We believe recognizing and addressing racism in emergency medicine education is imperative. Critical gaps in curriculum design, assessment, bias training, allyship, and the learning environment negatively impact training programs. These gaps must be prioritized for research as they can have adverse effects on recruitment, the ability to promote a safe learning environment, patient care, and patient outcomes.

Simulation for diversity, equity and inclusion in emergency medicine residency training: A qualitative study.

Background: The last few years have seen an increased focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across organizations. Simulation has been used in varying degrees for teaching about DEI topics with emergency medicine; however, there are no established best practices or guidelines on this subject. To further examine the use of simulation for DEI teachings, the DEISIM work group was created as a collaboration between the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Simulation Academy and the Academy for Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Medicine (ADIEM). This study represents their findings. Method: This qualitative study was conducted using a three-pronged approach. Initial literature search was conducted followed by a call for submission of simulation curricula. These were then followed by five focus groups. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed by a professional transcription service, and then subjected to thematic analysis. Results: Data were analyzed and organized into four broad categories including Learners, Facilitators, Organizational/Leadership, and Technical Issues. Challenges within each of these were identified, as were potential solutions. Select pertinent findings included focused faculty development, a carefully planned approach that utilized DEI content experts and the use of simulation for workplace microaggressions or discriminations. Conclusions: There appears to be a clear role for simulation in DEI teachings. Such curricula, however, should be undertaken with careful planning and input from appropriate and representative parties. More research is needed on optimizing and standardizing simulation-based DEI curricula.

Meeting expectations: An exploration of academic emergency medicine faculty experiences and preferences in the virtual meeting environment by age, gender and parental status.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual meetings became the norm in academic emergency medicine (EM) departments. This study explores the experiences of academic EM faculty within this environment. Methods: In 2021, authors surveyed a cross-sectional convenience sample of EM faculty using a mixed-methods approach to explore perceptions of the virtual meeting environment. Authors reported data on a five-point Likert scale, summarized as percentages, and calculated differences using Pearson's chi-squared test, where p < 0.05 was significant. Free text responses were analyzed qualitatively. Results: Two-hundred-fifty-nine responses were collected, (female [55.6%], ≤40 years old, [39.8%]) of which 33.2% had children ≤7 years old. Most respondents felt the total number of virtual meetings had increased and were more likely to happen outside of regular business hours compared to in-person meetings. Most faculty preferred meetings during regular hours and liked the virtual format overall. Younger faculty respondents were more polarized in their preferences of timing of meetings and reported more pressure to accept meetings outside of regular hours. Female respondents with young children were more likely to dislike meetings outside regular hours and to have declined them. Women faculty, younger faculty, and women faculty with young children were significantly more likely to agree that women had been "more impacted by the new virtual work environment." Qualitative themes highlighting the flexibility provided by the virtual work environment and decreased commuting time, though many felt communication was limited in virtual meetings. Conclusions: Academic EM faculty mostly preferred keeping meetings during regular business hours and in a virtual format. Experiences varied by age but not by gender overall. Women with young children reported greater challenges than women without. Men did not differ by parental status. The virtual format provided increased flexibility but limited communication and engagement. Academic EM departments may use this data to inform future meeting practices.