The impact of interviewer characteristics on residency candidate scores in Emergency Medicine: a brief report.

Background: At the conclusion of residency candidate interview days, faculty interviewers commonly meet as a group to reach conclusions about candidate evaluations based on shared information. These conclusions ultimately translate into rank list position for The Residency Match. The primary objective is to determine if the post-interview discussion influences the final scores assigned by each interviewer, and to investigate whether interviewer characteristics are significantly associated with the likelihood of changing their score. Based on Foucault's 'theory of discourse' and Bourdieu's 'social capital theory,' we hypothesized that interviewer characteristics, and the discourse itself, would contribute to score changes after a post-interview discussion regarding emergency medicine residency candidates. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of candidate scores for all candidates to a four-year emergency medicine residency program affiliated with Yale University School of Medicine during a single application cycle. The magnitude and direction of score changes, if any, after group discussion were plotted and grouped by interviewer academic rank. We created a logistic regression model to determine the odds that candidate scores changed from pre- and post-discussion ratings related to specific interviewer factors. Results: A total of 24 interviewers and 211 candidates created 471 unique interviewer-candidate scoring interactions, with 216 (45.8%) changing post-discussion. All interviewers ranked junior to professor were significantly more likely to change their score compared to professors. Interviewers who were women had significantly lower odds of changing their individual scores following group discussion (p=0.020; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.89). Conclusions: Interviewers with lower academic rank had higher odds of changing their post-discussion scores of residency candidates compared to professors. Future work is needed to further characterize the influencing factors and could help create more equitable decision processes during the residency candidate ranking process.

Conference Didactic Planning and Structure: An Evidence-based Guide to Best Practices from the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors.

Emergency medicine residency programs around the country develop didactic conferences to prepare residents for board exams and independent practice. To our knowledge, there is not currently an evidence-based set of guidelines for programs to follow to ensure maximal benefit of didactics for learners. This paper offers expert guidelines for didactic instruction from members of the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Best Practices Subcommittee, based on best available evidence. Programs can use these recommendations to further optimize their resident conference structure and content. Recommendations in this manuscript include best practices in formatting didactics, selection of facilitators and instructors, and duration of individual sessions. Authors also recommend following the Model of Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine when developing content, while incorporating sessions dedicated to morbidity and mortality, research methodology, journal article review, administration, wellness, and professionalism.

Resident Self-Assessment and the Deficiency of Individualized Learning Plans in Our Residencies.

INTRODUCTION: The focus of residency training is to ensure that graduates attain a minimum level of skills and knowledge in order to be able to practice independently. While there are multiple formal methods to evaluate a resident, there is a paucity of literature that describes whether programs have residents perform individual self-assessment (ISA) with the development of individualized learning plans (ILP) to better themselves. We sought to investigate the current state of emergency medicine (EM) residency programs using ISA and determine whether these assessments are used to develop an ILP for each resident. METHODS: An electronic survey was developed by educators at our institution and sent to all program leaders of United States EM residencies approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. An individualized email request was sent to non-responders. Results were obtained from February-May 2019. RESULTS: Of 240 programs we contacted, 119 (49.5%) completed the survey. Seventy-nine percent of programs reported that they had all residents perform an ISA. These were completed semiannually in 69% of the programs surveyed, annually in 19%, less than annually in 8%, and quarterly or more frequently in 4%. Of those programs requiring a resident ISA, only 21% required that all residents develop an ILP; 79% had only those residents requiring additional help or no residents develop an ILP. CONCLUSION: Most programs that completed the survey reported having residents complete an individual self-assessment, but there was variation in the areas assessed. The majority of programs had only lower performing, or no residents, develop an ILP based on this.