Staffing Patterns of Non-ACGME Fellowships with 4-Year Residency Programs: A National Survey.

Introduction: Emergency medicine (EM) is one of few specialties with variable training lengths. Hiring a three-year graduate to continue fellowship training in a department that supports a four-year residency program can lead to conflicts around resident supervision. We sought to understand hiring and clinical supervision, or staffing, patterns of non-Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) fellowships hosted at institutions supporting four-year residency programs. Methods: We performed a web-based, cross-sectional survey of non-ACGME fellowship directors (FD) hosted at institutions supporting four-year EM residency programs. We calculated descriptive statistics. Our primary outcome was the proportion of programs with four-year EM residencies that hire non-ACGME fellows graduating from three-year EM residencies. Results: Of 119 eligible FDs, 88 (74%) completed the survey. Seventy FDs (80%) indicated that they hire graduates of three-year residencies. Fifty-six (80%) indicated that three-year graduates supervise residents. Most FDs (74%) indicated no additional requirements exist to supervise residents outside of being hired as faculty. The FDs cited department policy, concerns about quality and length of training, and resident complaints as reasons for not hiring three-year graduates. A majority (10/18, 56%) noted that not hiring fellows from three-year programs negatively impacts recruitment and gives them access to a smaller applicant pool. Conclusion: Most non-ACGME fellowships at institutions with four-year EM programs recruit three-year graduates and allow them to supervise residents. This survey provides programs information on how comparable fellowships recruit and staff their departments, which may inform policies that fit the needs of their learners, the fellowship, and the department.

A consensus list of ultrasound competencies for graduating emergency medicine residents.

Objectives: Emergency ultrasound (EUS) is a critical component of emergency medicine (EM) resident education. Currently, there is no consensus list of competencies for EUS training, and graduating residents have varying levels of skill and comfort. The objective of this study was to define a widely accepted comprehensive list of EUS competencies for graduating EM residents through a modified Delphi method. Methods: We developed a list of EUS applications through a comprehensive literature search, the American College of Emergency Physicians list of core EUS benchmarks, and the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency-Academy of Emergency Ultrasound consensus document. We assembled a multi-institutional expert panel including 15 faculty members from diverse practice environments and geographical regions. The panel voted on the list of competencies through two rounds of a modified Delphi process using a modified Likert scale (1 = not at all important, 5 = very important) to determine levels of agreement for each application-with revisions occurring between the two rounds. High agreement for consensus was set at >80%. Results: Fifteen of 15 panelists completed the first-round survey (100%) that included 359 topics related to EUS. After the first round, 195 applications achieved high agreement, four applications achieved medium agreement, and 164 applications achieved low agreement. After the discussion, we removed three questions and added 13 questions. Fifteen of 15 panelists completed the second round of the survey (100%) with 209 of the 369 applications achieving consensus. Conclusion: Our final list represents expert opinion on EUS competencies for graduating EM residents. We hope to use this consensus list to implement a more consistent EUS curriculum for graduating EM residents and to standardize EUS training across EM residency programs.

Association of a longitudinal, preclinical ultrasound curriculum with medical student performance.

INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care ultrasound (US) is used in clinical practice across many specialties. Ultrasound (US) curricula for medical students are increasingly common. Optimal timing, structure, and effect of ultrasound education during medical school remains poorly understood. This study aims to retrospectively determine the association between participation in a preclinical, longitudinal US curriculum and medical student academic performance. METHODS: All first-year medical students at a medical school in the Midwest region of the United States were offered a voluntary longitudinal US curriculum. Participants were selected by random lottery. The curriculum consisted of five three-hour hands on-sessions with matching asynchronous content covering anatomy and pathologic findings. Content was paired with organ system blocks in the standard first year curriculum at our medical school. Exam scores between the participating and non-participating students were compared to evaluate the objective impact of US education on performance in an existing curriculum. We hypothesized that there would be an association between participation in the curriculum and improved medical student performance. Secondary outcomes included shelf exam scores for the surgery, internal medicine, neurology clerkships and USMLE Step 1. A multivariable linear regression model was used to evaluate the association of US curriculum participation with student performance. Scores were adjusted for age, gender, MCAT percentile, and science or engineering degree. RESULTS: 76 of 178 students applied to participate in the curriculum, of which 51 were accepted. US curriculum students were compared to non-participating students (n = 127) from the same class. The US curriculum students performed better in cardiovascular anatomy (mean score 92.1 vs. 88.7, p = 0.048 after adjustment for multiple comparisons). There were no significant differences in cumulative cardiovascular exam scores, or in anatomy and cumulative exam scores for the gastroenterology and neurology blocks. The effect of US curriculum participation on cardiovascular anatomy scores was estimated to be an improvement of 3.48 points (95% CI 0.78-6.18). No significant differences were observed for USMLE Step 1 or clerkship shelf exams. There were no significant differences in either preclinical, clerkship or Step 1 score for the 25 students who applied and were not accepted and the 102 who did not apply. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a preclinical longitudinal US curriculum was associated with improved exam performance in cardiovascular anatomy but not examination of other cardiovascular system concepts. Neither anatomy or comprehensive exam scores for neurology and gastrointestinal organ system blocks were improved.