Emergency Medicine Program Directors' Perspectives on Changes to Step 1 Scoring: Does It Help or Hurt Applicants?

INTRODUCTION: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score is one of the few standardized metrics used to objectively review applicants for residency. In February 2020 the USMLE program announced that the numerical Step 1 scoring would be changed to a binary (Pass/Fail) system. In this study we sought to characterize how this change in score reporting will impact the application review process for emergency medicine (EM) program directors (PD). METHODS: In March 2020 we electronically distributed a validated anonymous survey to EM PDs at 236 US EM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. RESULTS: Of 236 EM PDs, 121 responded (51.3% response rate). Overall, 72.7% believed binary Step 1 scoring would make the process of objectively comparing applicants more difficult. A minority (19.8%) believed it was a good idea, and 33.1% felt it would improve medical student well-being. The majority (88.4%) reported that they will increase their emphasis on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) for resident selection, and 85% plan to require Step 2 CK scores at application submission time. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests most EM PDs disapprove of the new Step 1 scoring. As more objective data is peeled away from the residency application, EM PDs will be left to rely more heavily on the few remaining measures, including Step 2 CK and standardized letters of evaluation. Further changes are needed to promote equity and improve the overall quality of the application process for students and PDs.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and promethazine in adults.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to assess whether ondansetron has superior nausea reduction compared with metoclopramide, promethazine, or saline placebo in emergency department (ED) adults. METHODS: This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded superiority trial was intended to enroll a convenience sample of 600 patients. Nausea was evaluated on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline and 30 minutes after treatment. Patients with a minimum preenrollment VAS of 40 mm were randomized to intravenous ondansetron 4 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 12.5 mg, or saline placebo. A 12-mm VAS improvement in nausea severity was deemed clinically important. We measured potential drug adverse effects at baseline and 30 minutes. Patients received approximately 500 mL of saline hydration during the initial 30 minutes. RESULTS: Of 180 subjects who consented, 163 completed the study. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 23-47), and 68% were female. The median 30-minute VAS reductions (95% confidence intervals) and saline volume given for ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -22 (-32 to -15), -30 (-38 to -25.5), -29 (-40 to -21), and -16 (-25 to -3), and 500, 500, 500, and 450, respectively. The median 30-minute VAS differences (95% confidence intervals) between ondansetron and metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -8 (-18.5 to 3), -7 (-21 to -5.5), and 6 (-7 to 20), respectively. We compared the antiemetic efficacy across all treatments with the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows no evidence that ondansetron is superior to metoclopramide and promethazine in reducing nausea in ED adults. Early study termination may have limited detection of ondansetron's superior nausea reduction over saline.

Kaizen: a method of process improvement in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Recent position statements from health care organizations have placed a strong emphasis on continuous quality improvement (CQI). CQI finds many of its roots in kaizen, which emphasizes small, low-cost, low-risk improvements. Based on the successful Kaizen Programs at organizations such as Toyota, the authors thought the emergency department (ED) would be an ideal environment to benefit from such a program. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to create a CQI program using a suggestion-based model that did not require a large time commitment, was easy to implement, and had the potential to empower all physicians in the department. It would not take the place of other improvement efforts, but instead augment them. The hypothesis was that such a program would foster sustainable engagement of emergency physicians in system improvement efforts and lead to a continuous stream of low-cost implementable system improvement interventions. METHODS: A CQI program was created for the physician staff of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, focusing on a suggestion-based model using kaizen philosophy. Lectures teaching kaizen philosophy were presented. Over the past 4 years, a methodology was developed utilizing a Web-based application, the Kaizen Tracker, which aids in the submission and implementation of suggestions that are called kaizen initiatives (KIs). The characteristics of the KIs submitted, details regarding resident and faculty participation, and the effectiveness of the Kaizen Tracker were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: There were 169, 105, and 101 KIs placed in the postimplementation calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively. Seventy-six percent of KIs submitted thus far have identified a "process problem." Fifty-three percent of KIs submitted have led to operational changes within the ED. Ninety-three percent of the resident physicians entered at least one KI, and 73% of these residents submitted more than one KI. Sixty-nine percent of the attendings entered at least one KI, and 89% of these attendings submitted more than one KI. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 4 years, the Kaizen Program at Vanderbilt has been widely and frequently used within the ED. It has resulted in over 400 changes in our adult ED system and has met the challenge of using CQI to drive ED improvements. There are limitations to this study, including the fact that its impact on patient outcomes remains unknown. However, this Kaizen Program may be an excellent tool for other departments to assist with quality improvement and should be studied with a multicenter prospective approach.