Introduction: As scholarship moves into the digital sphere, applicant and promotion and tenure (P&T) committee members lack formal guidance on evaluating the impact of digital scholarly work. The P&T process requires the appraisal of individual scholarly impact in comparison to scholars across institutions and disciplines. As dissemination methods evolve in the digital era, we must adapt traditional P&T processes to include emerging forms of digital scholarship. Methods: We conducted a blended, expert consensus procedure using a nominal group process to create a consensus document at the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Academic Assembly on April 1, 2019. Results: We discussed consensus guidelines for evaluation and promotion of digital scholarship with the intent to develop specific, evidence-supported recommendations to P&T committees and applicants. These recommendations included the following: demonstrate scholarship criteria; provide external evidence of impact; and include digital peerreview roles. As traditional scholarship continues to evolve within the digital realm, academic medicine should adapt how that scholarship is evaluated. P&T committees in academic medicine are at the epicenter for supporting this changing paradigm in scholarship. Conclusion: P&T committees can critically appraise the quality and impact of digital scholarship using specific, validated tools. Applicants for appointment and promotion should highlight and prepare their digital scholarship to specifically address quality, impact, breadth, and relevance. It is our goal to provide specific, timely guidance for both stakeholders to recognize the value of digital scholarship in advancing our field. [

Part One of this two-article series reviews assessment tools to measure burnout and other negative states. Physician well-being goes beyond merely the absence of burnout. Transient episodes of burnout are to be expected. Measuring burnout alone is shortsighted. Well-being includes being challenged, thriving, and achieving success in various aspects of personal and professional life. In this second part of the series, we identify and describe assessment tools related to wellness, quality of life, resilience, coping skills, and other positive states.

Background: The Association of American Medical Colleges instituted a standardized video interview (SVI) forall applicants to emergency medicine (EM). It is unclear how the SVI affects a faculty reviewer's decision on likelihood to invite an applicant (LTI) for an interview.Objectives: The objective was to determine whether the SVI affects the LTI.Methods: Nine Accreditation Council of Graduate Medication Education (ACGME)-accredited EM residency programs participated in this prospective, observational study. LTI was defined on a 5-point Likert scale as follows: 1 = definitely not invite, 2 = likely not invite, 3 = might invite, 4 = probably invite, 5 = definitely invite. LTI was recorded at three instances during each review: 1) after typical screening (blinded to the SVI), 2) after unblinding to the SVI score, and 3) after viewing the SVI video.Results: Seventeen reviewers at nine ACGME-accredited residency programs participated. We reviewed 2,219 applications representing 1,424 unique applicants. After unblinding the SVI score, LTI did not change in 2,065 (93.1%), increased in 85 (3.8%) and decreased in 69 (3.1%; p = 0.22). In subgroup analyses, the effect of the SVI on LTI was unchanged by United States Medical Licensing Examination score. However, when examining subgroups of SVI scores, the percentage of applicants in whom the SVI score changed the LTI was significantly different in those that scored in the lower and upper subgroups (p < 0.0001). The SVI video was viewed in 816 (36.8%) applications. Watching the video did not change the LTI in 631 (77.3%); LTI increased in 106 (13.0%) and decreased in 79 (9.7%) applications (p = 0.04).

No abstract

IntroductionIn 2017, the Standardized Video Interview (SVI) was required for applicants to emergency medicine (EM). The SVI contains six questions highlighting professionalism and interpersonal communication skills. The responses were scored (6–30). As it is a new metric, no information is available on correlation between SVI scores and other application data. This study was to determine if a correlation exists between applicants’ United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and SVI scores. We hypothesized that numeric USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores would not correlate with the SVI score, but that performance on the Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) portion may correlate with the SVI since both test communication skills.MethodsNine EM residency sites participated in the study with data exported from an Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS®) report. All applicants with both SVI and USMLE scores were included. We studied the correlation between SVI scores and USMLE scores. Predetermined subgroup analysis was performed based on applicants’ USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores as follows: (≥ 200, 201–220, 221–240, 241–260, >260). We used linear regression, the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test for statistical analyses.Results1,325 applicants had both Step 1 and SVI scores available, with no correlation between the overall scores (p=0.58) and no correlation between the scores across all Step 1 score ranges, (p=0.29). Both Step 2 CK and SVI scores were available for 1,275 applicants, with no correlation between the overall scores (p=0.56) and no correlation across all ranges, (p=0.10). The USMLE Step 2 CS and SVI scores were available for 1,000 applicants. Four applicants failed the CS test without any correlation to the SVI score (p=0.08).ConclusionWe found no correlation between the scores on any portion of the USMLE and the SVI; therefore, the SVI provides new information to application screeners.

IntroductionEmergency medicine (EM) fellowships are becoming increasingly numerous, and there is a growing trend among EM residents to pursue postgraduate fellowship training. Scant data have been published on the prevalence of postgraduate training among emergency physicians. We aimed to describe the prevalence and regional variation of fellowships among EM residency leadership.MethodsWe conducted an online anonymous survey that was sent to the Council of EM Residency Directors (CORD) membership in October 2014. The survey was a brief questionnaire, which inquired about fellowship, secondary board certification, gender, and length in a leadership position of each member of its residency leadership. We separated the responses to the survey into four different geographic regions. The geographic regions were defined by the same classification used by the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). We defined residency leadership as program director (PD), associate PD and assistant PD. Residencies that did not complete the survey were then individually contacted to encourage completion. The survey was initially piloted for ease of use and understanding of the questions with a select few EM PDs.ResultsWe obtained responses from 145 of the 164 Accrediting Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited EM residencies (88%). The fellowship prevalence among PDs, associate PDs, and assistant PDs was 21.4%, 20.3%, and 24.9% respectively. The most common fellowship completed was a fellowship in toxicology. Secondary board certification among PDs, associate PDs, and assistant PDs was 9.7%, 4.8%, and 2.9% respectively. Eighty-two percent of PDs have at least five years in residency leadership. Seventy-six percent of PDs were male, and there was a near-even split of gender among associate PDs and assistant PDs. The Western region had the highest percentage of fellowship and or secondary board certification among all levels of residency leadership.ConclusionThere is a low prevalence of fellowship training and secondary board certification among EM residency leadership, with the most common being toxicology. Assistant PDs, the majority of whom had less than five years residency leadership experience, had the highest percentage of fellowship training. There may be a regional variation in the percentage of residency leadership completing postgraduate training.

IntroductionIn 2017, all medical students applying for residency in emergency medicine (EM) were required to participate in the Standardized Video Interview (SVI). The SVI is a video-recorded, uni-directional interview consisting of six questions designed to assess interpersonal and communication skills and professionalism. It is unclear whether this simulated interview is an accurate representation of an applicant’s competencies that are often evaluated during the in-person interview.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to determine whether the SVI score correlates with a traditional in-person interview score.MethodsSix geographically and demographically diverse EM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education participated in this prospective observational study. Common demographic data for each applicant were obtained through an Electronic Residency Application Service export function prior to the start of any scheduled traditional interviews (TI). On each TI day, one interviewer blinded to all applicant data, including SVI score, rated the applicant on a five-point scale. A convenience sample of applicants was enrolled based on random assignment to the blinded interviewer. We studied the correlation between SVI score and TI score.ResultsWe included 321 unique applicants in the final analysis. Linear regression analysis of the SVI score against the TI score demonstrated a small positive linear correlation with an r coefficient of +0.13 (p=0.02). This correlation remained across all SVI score subgroups (p = 0.03).ConclusionOur study suggests that there is a small positive linear correlation between the SVI score and performance during the TI.

BackgroundResidency programs seek to incorporate various social media (SoMe) platforms into their educational curricula, yet little is known regarding the potential roadblocks towards implementation. Our objective was to assess the current utilization of SoMe platforms and identify common barriers to implementation by emergency medicine (EM) residency programs.MethodsMembers of the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) Information Technology (IT) Committee developed an anonymous survey distributed to representatives from EM residency programs using the “CORD Community” internet forum. Descriptive statistics including percentages for numerical data as well as Fisher’s exact test for categorical data were used to report results.ResultsWe received 116 individual responses from faculty, fellows, and residents of EM residency programs. The most common institutional, departmental, technological and knowledge barriers identified were restricted access to blogs (12.9%), insufficient protected time (17.2%), insufficient IT support to host the platform (16.4%), and a lack of knowledge among faculty of how to utilize blogs (23.3%) respectively.Ten respondents (8.6%) reported that their programs had not attempted to utilize any SoMe platforms. Community-based programs and smaller programs (<24 residents) were significantly more likely to identify barriers to SoMo use among this cohort.ConclusionUtilization of SoMe platforms for resident education by EM residency programs is increasingly common, but significant obstacles exist on many levels that prevent programs from leveraging these innovations for knowledge translation. This is particularly common for community-based and small residency programs. Awareness of these common barriers will allow institutions and programs to better anticipate and design solutions to overcome these obstacles.