Continuing professional development challenges in a rural setting: A mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Health professionals in rural settings encounter a wide range of medical conditions requiring broad knowledge for their clinical practice. This creates the need for ongoing continuing professional development (CPD). In this study, we explored the barriers that health professionals in a rural healthcare context faced participating in CPD activities and their preferences regarding educational strategies to overcome these challenges. METHODS: This mixed-methods (exploratory sequential) study in a community hospital in rural Mexico includes 22 interviews, 3 focus groups, 40 observational hours, and a questionnaire of healthcare staff. RESULTS: Despite low engagement with CPD activities (67% not motivated), all participants expressed interest and acknowledged the importance of learning for their practice. Barriers to participating include a disparity between strategies used (lecture-based) and their desire for practical learning, institutional barriers (poor leadership engagement, procedural flaws, and lack of resources), and collaboration barriers (adverse interprofessional education environment, ineffective teamwork, and poor communication). Additional barriers identified were inconvenient scheduling of sessions (75%), inadequate classrooms (65%), high workload (60%), ineffective speakers (60%), and boring sessions (55%). Participants' preferred learning strategies highlighted activities relevant to their daily clinical activities (practical workshops, simulations, and case analysis). The questionnaire had an 18% response rate. DISCUSSION: The barriers to CPD in this rural setting are multifactorial and diverse. A strong interest to engage in context-specific active learning strategies highlighted the need for leadership to prioritize interprofessional education, teamwork, and communication to enhance CPD and patient care. These results could inform efforts to strengthen CPD in other rural contexts.

Diversity of leadership in academic emergency medicine: Are we making progress?

BACKGROUND: Faculty who identify as women or racial/ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine (URiM) are less likely to occupy senior leadership positions or be promoted. Recent attention has focused on interventions to decrease this gap; thus, we aim to evaluate changes in leadership and academic promotion for these populations over time. METHODS: Successive cross-sectional observational study of six years (2015 to 2020) of data from the Academy of Administrators/Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine- Benchmark Survey. Primary analyses focused on gender/URiM differences in leadership roles and academic rank. Secondary analysis focused on disparities during the first 10 years of practice. Statistical modeling was conducted to address the primary aim of assessing differences in gender/URiM representation in EM leadership roles/rank over time. RESULTS: 12,967 responses were included (4589 women, 8378 men). Women had less median years as faculty (7 vs 11). Women and URiM were less likely to hold a leadership role and had lower academic rank with no change over the study period. More women were consistently in the early career cohort (within 10 years or less as faculty) : 2015 =-75.0% [95% CI:± 3.8%] v 61.4% [95% CI:± 3.0%]; 2020 =-75.1% [95% CI: ± 2.9%] v 63.3%, [95% CI:: ± 2.5%]. Men were significantly more likely to have any leadership role compared to women in 2015 and 2020 (2015 = 54.3% [95% CI: ± 3.1%] v 44.8%, [95% CI: ± 4.3%]; 2020 = 43.1% [95% CI:± 2.5%] v 34.8 [95% CI:± 3.1%]). Higher academic rank (associate/professor) was significantly more frequent among early career men than women in 2015 (21.1% [95% CI:± 2.58%] v 12.9%; [95% CI:± 3.0%]) and 2020 (23.1% [95% CI:± 2.2%] v 17.4%; [95% CI:± 2.5%]). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in women and URiM faculty leadership and academic rank persist, with no change over a six-year time span. Men early career faculty are more likely to hold leadership positions and be promoted to higher academic rank, suggesting early career inequities must be a target for future interventions.

Maintaining health professional education during war: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: War negatively impacts health professional education when health care is needed most. The aims of this scoping review are to describe the scope of barriers and targeted interventions to maintaining health professional education during war and summarise the research. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review between 20 June 2018 and 2 August 2018. The search was restricted to English publications including peer-reviewed publications without date ranges involving war and health professional education (medical school, residency training and nursing school), with interventions described to maintain educational activities. Two independent reviewers completed inclusion determinations and data abstraction. Thematic coding was performed using an inductive approach allowing dominant themes to emerge. The frequency of barrier and intervention themes and illustrative quotes were extracted. Articles were divided into modern/postmodern categories to permit temporal and historical analysis of thematic differences. RESULTS: Screening identified 3271 articles, with 56 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Publication dates ranged from 1914-2018 with 17 unique wars involving 17 countries. The studies concerned medical students (61.4%), residents (28.6%) and nursing students (10%). Half involved the modern era and half the postmodern era. Thematic coding identified five categories of barriers and targeted interventions in maintaining health professions education during war: curriculum, personnel, wellness, resources, and oversight, with most involving curriculum and personnel. The distribution of themes among various health professional trainees was similar. The frequency and specifics changed temporally reflecting innovations in medical education and war, with increased focus on oversight and personnel during the modern era and greater emphasis on wellness, curriculum, and resources during the postmodern era. CONCLUSIONS: There are overarching categories of barriers and targeted interventions in maintaining health professional education during war which evolve over time. These may serve as a useful framework to strategically support future research and policy efforts.

Addressing gender inequities: Creation of a multi-institutional consortium of women physicians in academic emergency medicine.

Gender inequity is pervasive in medicine, including emergency medicine (EM), and is well documented in workforce representation, leadership, financial compensation, and resource allocation. The reasons for gender inequities in medicine, including academic EM, are multifactorial and include disadvantageous institutional parental, family, and promotion policies; workplace environment and culture; implicit biases; and a paucity of women physician leader role models, mentors, and sponsors. To address some of the challenges of gender inequities and career advancement for women in academic EM, we established an innovative, peer-driven, multi-institutional consortium of women EM faculty employed at four distinct hospitals affiliated with one medical school. The consortium combined financial and faculty resources to execute gender-specific programs not feasible at an individual institution due to limited funding and faculty availability. The programs included leadership skill-building and negotiation seminars for consortium members. The consortium created a collaborative community designed specifically to enrich career development for women in academic EM, with a formal organizational structure to connect faculty from four hospitals under one academic institution. The objective of this report is to describe the creation of this cross-institutional consortium focused on career development, academic productivity, and networking and sharing best practices for work-life integration for academic EM women faculty. This consortium-building model could be used to enhance existing institutional career development structures for women and other physician communities in academic medicine with unique career advancement challenges.

Here to chair: Gender differences in the path to leadership.

OBJECTIVE: Career paths leading to department chair positions are elusive. Women represent only 11% of academic emergency department (ED) chairs. It is unclear whether the pathway to chair is different for men and women; the characteristics, achievements, and qualifications among those who become ED chairs is unknown. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of curriculum vitae (CV) of current ED chairs in departments with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency programs. Former women chairs were included due to paucity of current women chairs. Statistics were calculated using bivariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 163 eligible chairs, 88 CV (54%) were obtained, including six former women chairs. A majority (86.4%) self-identified as White/Caucasian, 21.5% were women, 46% were chief residents, 28.4% completed additional postgraduate degrees, and 21.8% were fellowship trained. At time of chair appointment, 58% were professor rank, 53.5% held ED operations roles, and 32% served as vice chair. Women were more likely to be in educational (53% vs. 22%) versus operational (26% vs. 61%, p = 0.02) roles. Women obtained more advanced degrees (47% vs. 25%, p = 0.02), were awarded more nonfederal grants (median = 7 vs. 3, p = 0.04), and achieved more national committee leadership (median = 4 vs. 1, p = 0.02). There were no gender differences in fellowship training, awards, leadership training programs, publications, federal grants, or national/international lectures after adjusting for years in practice. CONCLUSION: While the majority of chairs held prior leadership roles in ED operations, only one in five women chairs did, suggesting gender differences in the path to chair attainment. These differences in paths may contribute to persistent gender disparities in ED chairs and may be influenced by career path choices, implicit bias, and structural barriers.

Medicolegal Issues in Expedition and Wilderness Medicine.

There is increased participation in wilderness expeditions to remote and austere environments, which increases the likelihood of an accident and/or medical emergency and the professional liability risks for trip organizers. Trip organizers, outfitters, tour guides, and health care providers must understand the medicolegal liabilities involved in and the legal protection and immunity available when rendering care in austere and challenging settings to mitigate risks and prepare for the level of medical care that may be required. There is a great deal of variability in the legal protections provided by Good Samaritan laws and interpretations may differ among jurisdictions.