Dataset Information

Assessment of emergency medicine residents: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Competency-based medical education is becoming the new standard for residency programs, including Emergency Medicine (EM). To inform programmatic restructuring, guide resources and identify gaps in publication, we reviewed the published literature on types and frequency of resident assessment.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and ERIC from Jan 2005 - June 2014. MeSH terms included "assessment," "residency," and "emergency medicine." We included studies on EM residents reporting either of two primary outcomes: 1) assessment type and 2) assessment frequency per resident. Two reviewers screened abstracts, reviewed full text studies, and abstracted data. Reporting of assessment-related costs was a secondary outcome.

Results

The search returned 879 articles; 137 articles were full-text reviewed; 73 met inclusion criteria. Half of the studies (54.8%) were pilot projects and one-quarter (26.0%) described fully implemented assessment tools/programs. Assessment tools (n=111) comprised 12 categories, most commonly: simulation-based assessments (28.8%), written exams (28.8%), and direct observation (26.0%). Median assessment frequency (n=39 studies) was twice per month/rotation (range: daily to once in residency). No studies thoroughly reported costs.

Conclusion

EM resident assessment commonly uses simulation or direct observation, done once-per-rotation. Implemented assessment systems and assessment-associated costs are poorly reported. Moving forward, routine publication will facilitate transitioning to competency-based medical education.

SUBMITTER: Colmers-Gray IN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5344063 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of emergency medicine residents: a systematic review.

Colmers-Gray Isabelle N IN Walsh Kieran K Chan Teresa M TM

Canadian medical education journal 20170224 1

<h4>Background</h4>Competency-based medical education is becoming the new standard for residency programs, including Emergency Medicine (EM). To inform programmatic restructuring, guide resources and identify gaps in publication, we reviewed the published literature on types and frequency of resident assessment.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and ERIC from Jan 2005 - June 2014. MeSH terms included "assessment," "residency," and "emergency medicine." We included studies on E ...[more]

PMID: 28344722

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionA primary aim of residency training is to develop competence in clinical reasoning. However, there are few instruments that can accurately, reliably, and efficiently assess residents' clinical decision-making ability. This study aimed to externally validate the script concordance test in emergency medicine (SCT-EM), an assessment tool designed for this purpose.MethodsUsing established methodology for the SCT-EM, we compared EM residents' performance on the SCT-EM to an expert panel of emergency physicians at three urban academic centers. We performed adjusted pairwise t-tests to compare differences between all residents and attending physicians, as well as among resident postgraduate year (PGY) levels. We tested correlation between SCT-EM and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestone scores using Pearson's correlation coefficients. Inter-item covariances for SCT items were calculated using Cronbach's alpha statistic.ResultsThe SCT-EM was administered to 68 residents and 13 attendings. There was a significant difference in mean scores among all groups (mean + standard deviation: PGY-1 59 + 7; PGY-2 62 + 6; PGY-3 60 + 8; PGY-4 61 + 8; 73 + 8 for attendings, p < 0.01). Post hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrated that significant difference in mean scores only occurred between each PGY level and the attendings (p < 0.01 for PGY-1 to PGY-4 vs attending group). Performance on the SCT-EM and EM Milestones was not significantly correlated (r = 0.12, p = 0.35). Internal reliability of the exam was determined using Cronbach's alpha, which was 0.67 for all examinees, and 0.89 in the expert-only group.ConclusionThe SCT-EM has limited utility in reliably assessing clinical reasoning among EM residents. Although the SCT-EM was able to differentiate clinical reasoning ability between residents and expert faculty, it did not between PGY levels, or correlate with Milestones scores. Furthermore, several limitations threaten the validity of the SCT-EM, suggesting further study is needed in more diverse settings.

Project description:BACKGROUND: To date, no standardized presentation format is taught to emergency medicine (EM) residents during patient handoffs to consulting or admitting physicians. The Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation (SBAR) is a common format that provides a consistent framework to communicate pertinent information. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate the feasibility of using SBAR to teach interphysician communication skills to first-year EM residents to use during patient handoffs. METHODS: An educational study was designed as part of a pilot curriculum to teach first-year EM residents handoff communication skills. A standardized SBAR reporting format was taught during a 1-hour didactic intervention. All residents were evaluated using pretest/posttest simulated cases using a 17-item SBAR checklist initially, and then within 4 months to assess retention of the tool. A survey was distributed to determine resident perceptions of the training and potential clinical utility. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant improvement from the resident scores on the pretest/posttest of the first case (P = .001), but there was no difference between posttest of the first case and pretest of the second case (P = .34), suggesting retention of the material. There was a statistically significant improvement from the pretest and posttest scores on the second case (P = .001). The survey yielded good reliability for both sessions (Cronbach alpha = 0.87 and 0.89, respectively), demonstrating statistically significant increases for the perceived quality of training, presentation comfort level, and the use of SBAR (P = .001). CONCLUSION: SBAR was acceptable to first-year EM residents, with improvements in both the ability to apply SBAR to simulated case presentations and retention at a follow-up session. This format was feasible to use as a training method and was well received by our resident physicians. Future research will be useful in examining the general applicability of the SBAR model for interphysician communications in the clinical environment and residency training programs.

Project description:BackgroundThe majority of children seeking care in emergency departments are seen by general emergency medicine (EM) residency program graduates. Throughout training, EM residents manage fewer critically ill pediatric patients compared to adults, and the exposure to children with illness and injury requiring emergent assessment and management is often limited and sporadic across training sites. This report describes the creation of a robust set of simulation cases for EM trainees incorporating topics identified during a previous modified Delphi study to improve their pediatric acute care knowledge and skills.MethodsAll 30 pediatric EM topics and 19/26 procedures previously identified as "must be taught by simulation" to EM residents were mapped to 15 simulation case topics. Twenty-seven authors from 16 institutions created cases and supporting materials. Each case was iteratively implemented during a peer review process at two to five sites with EM residents. Feedback from learners and facilitators was collected via electronic surveys and used to revise each case before the next implementation.ResultsThirty-five institutions participated in the peer review process. Fifty-one facilitators and 281 participants (90% EM residents) completed surveys. Most facilitators (98%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "This simulation case is relevant to the field of emergency medicine." A majority of facilitators and participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statements "The simulation case was realistic" (98% of facilitators, 94% of participants) and "This simulation case was effective in teaching resuscitation skills" (92% of facilitators, 98% of participants). Most participants reported confidence in knowledge and skills addressed in the learning objectives after participation.ConclusionsFacilitators and EM residents found cases from a novel simulation-based curriculum covering critical pediatric EM topics relevant, realistic, and effective. This curriculum can help provide a standardized, uniform experience for EM residents who will care for critically ill pediatric patients in their communities.

Project description:ImportanceGender disparities exist throughout medicine. Recent studies have highlighted an attainment gap between male and female residents in performance evaluations on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. Because of difficulties in blinding evaluators to gender, it remains unclear whether these observed disparities are because of implicit bias or other causes.ObjectiveTo estimate the magnitude of implicit gender bias in assessments of procedural competency in emergency medicine residents and whether the gender of the evaluator is associated with identified implicit gender bias.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study was performed from 2018 to 2020 in which emergency medicine residency faculty assessed procedural competency by evaluating videos of residents performing 3 procedures in a simulated environment. They were blinded to the intent of the study. Proceduralists were filmed performing each procedure from 2 different viewpoints simultaneously by 2 different cameras. One was a gender-blinded (ie, hands-only) view, and the other a wide-angled gender-evident (ie, whole-body) view. The faculty evaluators viewed videos in a random order and assessed procedural competency on a global rating scale with extensive validity evidence for the evaluation of video-recorded procedural performance.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was to determine if there was a difference in the evaluation of procedural competency based on gender. The secondary outcome was to determine if there was a difference in the evaluations based on the gender of the evaluator.ResultsFifty-one faculty evaluators enrolled from 19 states, with 22 male participants (43.1%), 29 female participants (56.9%), and a mean (SD) age of 37 (6.4) years. Each evaluator assessed all 60 procedures: 30 gender-blinded (hands-only view) videos and 30 identical gender-evident (wide angle) videos. There were no statistically significant differences in the study evaluators' scores of the proceduralists based on their gender, and the gender of the evaluator was not associated with the difference in mean scores.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, we did not identify a difference in the evaluation of procedural competency based upon the gender of the resident proceduralist or the gender of the faculty evaluator.

Dataset Information

Assessment of emergency medicine residents: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Assessment of emergency medicine residents: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets