No abstract

The state of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) education within emergency medicine (EM) residency programs is reviewed and discussed in the context of shifting practice environments and new demands for a greater focus on the availability and quality of PEM services. The rapid growth of PEM within pediatrics has altered the EM practice landscape with regard to PEM. The authors evaluate the composition, quantity, and quality of PEM training in EM residency programs, with close attention paid to the challenges facing programs. A set of best practices is presented as a framework for discussion of future PEM training that would increase the yield and relevance of knowledge and experiences within the constraints of 3-and 4-year residencies. Innovative educational modalities are discussed, as well as the role of simulation and pediatric-specific patient safety education. Finally, barriers to PEM fellowship training among EM residency graduates are discussed in light of the shortage of practitioners from this training pathway and in recognition of the ongoing importance of the EM voice in PEM.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:S104-S113 ª 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Keywords: pediatric emergency medicine, guidelines, emergency medicine, residency, teaching T he Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) Academic Assembly held in Orlando, Florida, in March 2010 provided a venue for emergency medicine (EM) educators to examine the state of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) education and training within U.S. EM residency programs. The Academic Assembly planning committee invited the authors to develop a proposal for a presentation on the best educational practices for PEM within EM residency programs. The best practices recommendations were derived through a series of conference calls leading up to the presentation. The senior author (JB) developed a preliminary set of questions and best practice recommendations based on 15 years of work teaching PEM to EM residents and based on research of the PEM educational process. These were refined and revised during subsequent discussions with the remaining authors and evolved to the final set of recommendations, which were discussed during a postpresentation conference call. Comments from the session attendees were incorporated into the final set of best practice recommendations, which appear in this article. A comprehensive literature search was performed to provide material on which to base our recommendations. Overall, this article reflects the proceedings of the CORD Academic Assembly session; to enhance the discussion of best educational practices, the authors also offer expert opinion on the closely related issues of optimizing PEM education in the future, the promotion of PEM fellowship training within the specialty of EM, and PEM workforce issues.All five authors have considerable experience (average 14 years, range 5-20 years) in teaching PEM, developing curricula, and administrating large PEM educational programs. Four are...

No abstract

IntroductionFaculty educational contributions are hard to quantify, but in an era of limited resources it is essential to link funding with effort. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of an educational value unit (EVU) system in an academic emergency department and to examine its effect on faculty behavior, particularly on conference attendance and completion of trainee evaluations.MethodsA taskforce representing education, research, and clinical missions was convened to develop a method of incentivizing productivity for an academic emergency medicine faculty. Domains of educational contributions were defined and assigned a value based on time expended. A 30-hour EVU threshold for achievement was aligned with departmental goals. Targets included educational presentations, completion of trainee evaluations and attendance at didactic conferences. We analyzed comparisons of performance during the year preceding and after implementation.ResultsFaculty (N=50) attended significantly more didactic conferences (22.7 hours v. 34.5 hours, p<0.005) and completed more trainee evaluations (5.9 v. 8.8 months, p<0.005). During the pre-implementation year, 84% (42/50) met the 30-hour threshold with 94% (47/50) meeting post-implementation (p=0.11). Mean total EVUs increased significantly (94.4 hours v. 109.8 hours, p=0.04) resulting from increased conference attendance and evaluation completion without a change in other categories.ConclusionIn a busy academic department there are many work allocation pressures. An EVU system integrated with an incentive structure to recognize faculty contributions increases the importance of educational responsibilities. We propose an EVU model that could be implemented and adjusted for differing departmental priorities at other academic departments.

Introduction Real-time assessment of operator performance during procedural simulation is a common practice that requires undivided attention by 1 or more reviewers, potentially over many repetitions of the same case. Objective To determine whether reviewers display better interrater agreement of procedural competency when observing recorded, rather than live, performance; and to develop an assessment tool for pediatric rapid sequence intubation (pRSI). Methods A framework of a previously established Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) tool was modified for pRSI. Emergency medicine residents (postgraduate year 1–4) were prospectively enrolled in a pRSI simulation scenario and evaluated by 2 live raters using the modified tool. Sessions were videotaped and reviewed by the same raters at least 4 months later. Raters were blinded to their initial rating. Interrater agreement was determined by using the Krippendorff generalized concordance method. Results Overall interrater agreement for live review was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72–0.78) and for video was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73–0.82). Live review was significantly superior to video review in only 1 of the OSATS domains (Preparation) and was equivalent in the other domains. Intrarater agreement between the live and video evaluation was very good, greater than 0.75 for all raters, with a mean of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76–0.85). Conclusion The modified OSATS assessment tool demonstrated some evidence of validity in discriminating among levels of resident experience and high interreviewer reliability. With this tool, intrareviewer reliability was high between live and 4-months' delayed video review of the simulated procedure, which supports feasibility of delayed video review in resident assessment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Graduate medical education faces challenges as programs transition to the next accreditation system. Evidence supports the effectiveness of simulation for training and assessment. This study aims to describe the current use of simulation and barriers to its implementation in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellowship programs.METHODS: A survey was developed by consensus methods and distributed to PEM program directors via an anonymous online survey.RESULTS: Sixty-nine (95%) fellowship programs responded. Simulation-based training is provided by 97% of PEM fellowship programs; the remainder plan to within 2 years. Thirty-seven percent incorporate .20 simulation hours per year. Barriers include the following: lack of faculty time (49%) and faculty simulation experience (39%); limited support for learner attendance (35%); and lack of established curricula (32%). Of those with written simulation curricula, most focus on resuscitation (71%), procedures (63%), and teamwork/communication (38%). Thirty-seven percent use simulation to evaluate procedural competency and resuscitation management. PEM fellows use simulation to teach (77%) and have conducted simulation-based research (33%). Thirty percent participate in a fellows' "boot camp"; however, finances (27%) and availability (15%) limit attendance. Programs receive simulation funding from hospitals (47%), academic institutions (22%), and PEM revenue (17%), with 22% reporting no direct simulation funding.CONCLUSIONS: PEM fellowships have rapidly integrated simulation into their curricula over the past 5 years. Current limitations primarily involve faculty and funding, with equipment and dedicated space less significant than previously reported. Shared curricula and assessment tools, increased faculty and financial support, and regionalization could ameliorate barriers to incorporating simulation into PEM fellowships.WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Simulationbased education is increasing but its use in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellowships has not been recently documented. Previous studies identified barriers including equipment and space, but growth of simulation centers and equipment has been widespread. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:Simulation is widely used in PEM fellowships, and current barriers include faculty and learner time, implementation of best practices in simulation; equipment is less significant. Future work should focus on curriculum and evaluation development, aligning with the milestones.

No abstract

Sixty-three percent of PEM fellowship programs integrate HFS-based activities. The majority of PEM fellowship program directors value the role of HFS in augmenting clinical experience and documenting procedural skills. Regional simulation centers are one possible solution to offer HFS training to fellowships with limited financial support and/or lack of experienced simulation faculty.