BackgroundAn increasing number of emergency medicine (EM) residency training programs have residents interested in participating in clinical rotations in other countries. However, the policies that each individual training program applies to this process are different. To our knowledge, little has been done in the standardization of these experiences to help EM residency programs with the evaluation, administration and implementation of a successful global health clinical elective experience. The objective of this project was to assess the current status of EM global health electives at residency training programs and to establish recommendations from educators in EM on the best methodology to implement successful global health electives.MethodsDuring the 2011 Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) Academic Assembly, participants met to address this issue in a mediated discussion session and working group. Session participants examined data previously obtained via the CORD online listserve, discussed best practices in global health applications, evaluations and partnerships, and explored possible solutions to some of the challenges. In addition a survey was sent to CORD members prior to the 2011 Academic Assembly to evaluate the resources and processes for EM residents’ global experiences.ResultsRecommendations included creating a global health working group within the organization, optimizing a clearinghouse of elective opportunities for residents and standardizing elective application materials, site evaluations and resident assessment/feedback methods. The survey showed that 71.4% of respondents have global health partnerships and electives. However, only 36.7% of programs require pre-departure training, and only 20% have formal competency requirements for these global health electives.ConclusionsA large number of EM training programs have global health experiences available, but these electives and the trainees may benefit from additional institutional support and formalized structure.
Background Faculty involvement in resident teaching events is beneficial to resident education, yet evidence about the factors that promote faculty attendance at resident didactic conferences is limited. Objective To determine whether offering continuing medical education (CME) credits would result in an increase in faculty attendance at weekly emergency medicine conferences and whether faculty would report the availability of CME credit as a motivating factor. Methods Our prospective, multi-site, observational study of 5 emergency medicine residency programs collected information on the number of faculty members present at CME and non-CME lectures for 9 months and collected information from faculty on factors influencing decisions to attend resident educational events and from residents on factors influencing their learning experience. Results Lectures offering CME credit on average were attended by 5 additional faculty members per hour, compared with conferences that did not offer CME credit (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9–6.1; P < .001). Faculty reported their desire to “participate in resident education” was the most influential factor prompting them to attend lectures, followed by “explore current trends in emergency medicine” and the lecture's “specific topic.” Faculty also reported that “clinical/administrative duties” and “family responsibilities” negatively affected their ability to attend. Residents reported that the most important positive factor influencing their conference experience was “lectures given by faculty.” Conclusions Although faculty reported that CME credit was not an important factor in their decision to attend resident conferences, offering CME credit resulted in significant increases in faculty attendance. Residents reported that “lectures given by faculty” and “faculty attendance” positively affected their learning experience.
Background: An accurate test to differentiate large artery stroke patients from those with cardioembolic stroke would be of significant utility. Using the Biomarkers of Acute Stroke Etiology (BASE) trial (NCT02014896) dataset, our purpose was to determine if blood gene expression signatures accurately differentiate large artery stroke patients from those with cardioembolic stroke. Methods: The BASE trial enrolled suspected stroke patients presenting to 10 hospitals within 8 hours of symptom onset. Gold standard diagnosis was per local neurologist adjudication blinded to RNA testing. The final gold standard diagnosis was determined by an adjudication committee blinded to RNA test results. Whole blood, obtained in PAX tubes, was frozen at -20C within 72 hours and analyzed at a core lab (Ischemia Care, LLC, Blue Ash, OH) using Affymetrix HTA micro arrays. Significantly differentially expressed genes (p<0.005) were identified by calculating an empirical Bayes moderated t-statistic contrasting expression in large artery and cardioembolic stroke patients. Differentially expressed genes were used as input to a multi-layer perceptron neural network to derive a 66-gene diagnostic signature. Results: Overall, 32 patients were enrolled, 8 (25%) with large artery stroke and 24 (75%) with cardioembolic stroke; 50% were male, and median (IQR) age was 68.6 (47,88). Median (IQR) time from symptoms to presentation was 102.5 (14, 450) minutes. Coexistent pathology at presentation was atrial fibrillation in 13 (41%), heart failure 7 (22%), prior stroke 7 (22%), and coronary artery disease 8 (25%). The resulting gene signature distinguished large artery stroke from cardioembolic stroke; C-statistic 0.99 (0.94-1.0, 95% CI), sensitivity 0.91 (0.56-1.0, 95% CI), at a fixed specificity of 0.95, as observed in 5-fold cross validation of the training data. Conclusion: RNA expression differentiates large artery stroke patients from those with cardioembolic stroke, and may have therapeutic and outcome implications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.