Dataset Information

The View From the Top: Academic Emergency Department Chairs' Perspectives on Education Scholarship.

ABSTRACT: Education scholarship continues to grow within emergency medicine (EM) and in academic medicine in general. Despite a growing interest, would-be education scholars often struggle to find adequate mentorship, research training, funding, and protected time to produce rigorous scholarship. The ways in which individual academic EM departments can support this mission remains an area in need of description.

Objectives

We sought to describe academic EM department chairs' perceptions of education scholarship and facilitators and barriers to producing high-quality education scholarship.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study using a grounded theory-derived approach. Participants were solicited directly, and semistructured interviews were conducted via telephone. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed by three study investigators using a coding matrix. Discrepancies in coding were resolved via in depth discussion.

Results

We interviewed seven EM chairs from academic departments throughout North America (six in geographically diverse regions of the United States and one in western Canada). Chairs described education scholarship as lacking clearly defined and measurable outcomes, as well as methodologic rigor. They identified that education faculty within their departments need training and incentives to pursue scholarly work in a system that primarily expects teaching from educators. Chairs acknowledged a lack of access to education research expertise and mentorship within their own departments, but identified potential resources within their local medical schools and universities. They also voiced willingness to support career development opportunities and scholarly work among faculty seeking to perform education research.

Conclusions

Academic EM chairs endorse a need for methodologic training, mentorship, and access to expertise specific to education scholarship. While such resources are often rare within academic EM departments, they may exist within local universities and schools of medicine. Academic EM chairs described themselves as willing and able to support faculty who wish to pursue this type of work.

SUBMITTER: Clarke SO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6001505 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The View From the Top: Academic Emergency Department Chairs' Perspectives on Education Scholarship.

Clarke Samuel O SO Jordan Jaime J Yarris Lalena M LM Fowlkes Emilie E Kurth Jaqueline J Runde Daniel D Coates Wendy C WC

AEM education and training 20171114 1

Education scholarship continues to grow within emergency medicine (EM) and in academic medicine in general. Despite a growing interest, would-be education scholars often struggle to find adequate mentorship, research training, funding, and protected time to produce rigorous scholarship. The ways in which individual academic EM departments can support this mission remains an area in need of description.<h4>Objectives</h4>We sought to describe academic EM department chairs' perceptions of educatio ...[more]

PMID: 30051062

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElectronic educational (e-learning) technology usage continues to grow. Many medical journals operate companion blogs (an application of e-learning technology) that enable rapid dissemination of scientific knowledge and discourse. Faculty members participating in promotion and tenure academic tracks spend valuable time and effort contributing, editing, and directing these medical journal blogs.ObjectiveWe sought to understand whether chairs of medicine and pediatric departments acknowledge blog authorship as academic achievement.MethodsThe authors surveyed 267 chairs of US and Canadian medicine and pediatric departments regarding their attitudes toward the role of faculty participation in e-learning and blogging in the promotion and tenure process. The survey completion rate was 22.8% (61/267).ResultsA majority of respondents (87%, 53/61) viewed educational scholarship as either important or very important for promotion. However, only 23% (14/61) perceived importance to faculty effort in producing content for journal-based blogs. If faculty were to participate in blog authorship, 72% (44/61) of surveyed chairs favored involvement in a journal-based versus a society-based or a personal (nonaffiliated) blog. We identified a "favorable group" of chairs (19/59, 32%), who rated leadership roles in e-learning tools as important or very important, and an "unfavorable group" of chairs (40/59, 68%), who rated leadership roles in e-learning tools as somewhat important or not important. The favorable group were more likely to be aware of faculty bloggers within their departments (58%, 11/19 vs 25%, 10/40), viewed serving on editorial boards of e-learning tools more favorably (79%, 15/19 vs 31%, 12/39), and were more likely to value effort spent contributing to journal-based blogs (53%, 10/19 vs 10%, 4/40).ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that although the majority of department chairs value educational scholarship, only a minority perceive value in faculty blogging effort.

Project description:BackgroundAcademic and non-academic emergency departments (EDs) are regularly compared in clinical operations benchmarking despite suggestion that the two groups may differ in their clinical operations characteristics. and outcomes. We sought to describe and compare clinical operations characteristics of academic versus non-academic EDs.MethodsWe performed a descriptive, comparative analysis of academic and non-academic adult and general EDs with 40,000+ annual encounters, using the Academy of Academic Administrators of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM)/Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) and Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA) survey results. We defined academic EDs as primary teaching sites for emergency medicine (EM) residencies and non-academic EDs as sites with minimal resident involvement. We constructed the academic and non-academic cohorts from the AAAEM/AACEM and EDBA surveys, respectively, and analyzed metrics common to both surveys.ResultsEighty and 454 EDs met inclusion criteria for academic and non-academic EDs, respectively. Academic EDs had more median annual patient encounters (73,001 vs 54,393), lower median proportion of pediatric patients (6.3% vs 14.5%), higher median proportion of EMS patients (27% vs 19%), and were more commonly designated as Level I or II Trauma Centers (94% vs 24%). Median patient arrival-to-provider times did not differ (26 vs 25 min). Median length-of-stay was longer (277 vs 190 min) for academic EDs, and left-before-treatment-complete was higher (5.7% vs 2.9%). MRI utilization was higher for academic EDs (2.2% patients with at least one MRI vs 1.0 MRIs performed per 100 patients). Patients-per-hour of provider coverage was lower for academic EDs with and without consideration for advanced practice providers and residents.ConclusionsDemographic and operational performance measures differ between academic and non-academic EDs, suggesting that the two groups may be inappropriate operational performance comparators. Causes for the differences remain unclear but the differences appear not to be attributed solely to the academic mission.

Project description:ContextDisaster citizen is the use of scientific methods by the public to address preparedness, response, or recovery needs. Disaster citizen science applications with public health relevance are growing in academic and community sectors, but integration with public health emergency preparedness, response, and recovery (PHEPRR) agencies is limited.ObjectiveWe examined how local health departments (LHDs) and community-based organizations have used citizen science to build public health preparedness and response (PHEP) capabilities. The purpose of this study is to help LHDs make use of citizen science to support PHEPRR.DesignWe conducted semistructured telephone interviews (n = 55) with LHD, academic, and community representatives engaged or interested in citizen science. We used inductive and deductive methods to code and analyze interview transcripts.SettingUS and international community-based organizations and US LHDs.ParticipantsParticipants included 18 LHD representatives reflecting diversity in geographic regions and population sizes served and 31 disaster citizen science project leaders and 6 citizen science thought leaders.Main outcomesWe identified challenges LHDs and academic and community partners face in using citizen science for PHEPRR as well as strategies to facilitate implementation.ResultsAcademic and community-led disaster citizen science activities aligned with many PHEP capabilities including community preparedness, community recovery, public health surveillance and epidemiological investigation, and volunteer management. All participant groups discussed challenges related to resources, volunteer management, collaborations, research quality, and institutional acceptance of citizen science. The LHD representatives noted unique barriers due to legal and regulatory constraints and their role in using citizen science data to inform public health decisions. Strategies to increase institutional acceptance included enhancing policy support for citizen science, increasing volunteer management support, developing best practices for research quality, strengthening collaborations, and adopting lessons learned from relevant PHEPRR activities.ConclusionsThere are challenges to overcome in building PHEPRR capacity for disaster citizen science but also opportunities for LHDs to leverage the growing body of work, knowledge, and resources in academic and community sectors.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate geriatric education programs for emergency department (ED) professionals based on: content and teaching methods and learning outcome effects and factors promoting or hindering program implementation.DesignSystematic review.SettingED.ParticipantsPhysicians, nurses, and medical residents working in the ED.Methods and measurementFive major biomedical databases were searched for (quasi) experimental studies, published between 1990 and April 2018, evaluating geriatric education programs for ED professionals. Data were synthesized around study quality, learning participants, teaching content and methods, and Kirkpatrick learning outcomes.ResultsNine before-after studies were included. Learners were mostly ED residents and, to a smaller extent, ED nurses and physicians. Study quality was moderate, with the lowest scores on sampling and instrument validity. Programs varied from a 1-day workshop to a 2-year curriculum, mostly combining didactic lectures with active and experiential learning formats. Topics commonly addressed included managing: geriatric syndromes, trauma and falls, medication, atypical presentations, and care transitions. Statistically significant improvements were mostly found in learners' knowledge acquisition (six studies). Significant improvements were also found in single studies on: self-reported geriatric screening, documentation of geriatric care, and appropriate urinary catheter placement. Factors promoting program implementation included: solving competing educational demands and busy work schedules, embedding the program in preexisting curricula, and close collaboration between emergency and geriatric medicine faculties.ConclusionsVarious geriatric education programs improve the geriatric knowledge of ED professionals and seem to positively impact their clinical practice. However, more program evaluations with larger study samples, and use of valid and reliable outcome measures, are needed to provide robust evidence on the effectiveness of such programs. J Am Geriatr Soc, 1-8, 2019. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2402-2409, 2019.

Dataset Information

The View From the Top: Academic Emergency Department Chairs' Perspectives on Education Scholarship.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The View From the Top: Academic Emergency Department Chairs' Perspectives on Education Scholarship.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets