No abstract

The influence of sex and gender on patient care is just being recognized in emergency medicine (EM). Providers are realizing the need to improve outcomes for both men and women by incorporating sex- and gender-specific science into clinical practice, while EM researchers are now beginning to study novel sex- and gender-specific perspectives in the areas of acute care research. This article serves as an update on the sex differences in a variety of acute clinical care topics within the field of EM and showcases opportunities for improving patient care outcomes and expanding research to advance the science of gender-specific emergency care.

IntroductionSince 2011 two online, validated exams for fourth-year emergency medicine (EM) students have been available (National EM M4 Exams). In 2013 the National Board of Medical Examiners offered the Advanced Clinical Examination in Emergency Medicine (EM-ACE). All of these exams are now in widespread use; however, there are no data on how they correlate. This study evaluated the correlation between the EM-ACE exam and the National EM M4 Exams.MethodsFrom May 2013 to April 2014 the EM-ACE and one version of the EM M4 exam were administered sequentially to fourth-year EM students at five U.S. medical schools. Data collected included institution, gross and scaled scores and version of the EM M4 exam. We performed Pearson’s correlation and random effects linear regression.Results303 students took the EM-ACE and versions 1 (V1) or 2 (V2) of the EM M4 exams (279 and 24, respectively). The mean percent correct for the exams were as follows: EM-ACE 74.8 (SD-8.83), V1 83.0 (SD-6.41), V2 78.5 (SD-7.70). Pearson’s correlation coefficient for the V1/EM-ACE was 0.51 (0.42 scaled) and for the V2/EM-ACE was 0.59 (0.41 scaled). The coefficient of determination for V1/EM-ACE was 0.72 and for V2/EM-ACE = 0.71 (0.86 and 0.49 for scaled scores). The R-squared values were 0.25 and 0.30 (0.18 and 0.13, scaled), respectively. There was significant cluster effect by institution.ConclusionThere was moderate positive correlation of student scores on the EM-ACE exam and the National EM M4 Exams.

IntroductionIn April 2013, the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) released an Advanced Clinical Examination (ACE) in emergency medicine (EM). In addition to this new resource, CDEM (Clerkship Directors in EM) provides two online, high-quality, internally validated examinations. National usage statistics are available for all three examinations, however, it is currently unknown how students entering an EM residency perform as compared to the entire national cohort. This information may help educators interpret examination scores of both EM-bound and non-EM-bound students.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to compare EM clerkship examination performance between students who matched into an EM residency in 2014 to students who did not. We made comparisons were made using the EM-ACE and both versions of the National fourth year medical student (M4) EM examinations.MethodIn this retrospective multi-institutional cohort study, the EM-ACE and either Version 1 (V1) or 2 (V2) of the National EM M4 examination was given to students taking a fourth-year EM rotation at five institutions between April 2013 to February 2014. We collected examination performance, including the scaled EM-ACE score, and percent correct on the EM M4 exams, and 2014 NRMP Match status. Student t-tests were performed on the examination averages of students who matched in EM as compared with those who did not.ResultsA total of 606 students from five different institutions took both the EM-ACE and one of the EM M4 exams; 94 (15.5%) students matched in EM in the 2014 Match. The mean score for EM-bound students on the EM-ACE, V1 and V2 of the EM M4 exams were 70.9 (n=47, SD=9.0), 84.4 (n=36, SD=5.2), and 83.3 (n=11, SD=6.9), respectively. Mean scores for non-EM-bound students were 68.0 (n=256, SD=9.7), 82.9 (n=243, SD=6.5), and 74.5 (n=13, SD=5.9). There was a significant difference in mean scores in EM-bound and non-EM-bound student for the EM-ACE (p=0.05) and V2 (p<0.01) but not V1 (p=0.18) of the National EM M4 examination.ConclusionStudents who successfully matched in EM performed better on all three exams at the end of their EM clerkship.

Introduction: Emergency medicine milestones suggest skill performance expectations for graduating medical students. The objective of this study is to examine differences between student's perceived proficiency and faculty expectations relative to Level 1 EM milestones, identifying opportunities for curriculum development.Methods: Using ACGME milestone language, the authors developed a survey that measures student perceived skill proficiency with 22 skills, which was administered to fourth year medical students at 6 institutions. Similar surveys were sent to faculty to determine their expectations of students' skill proficiency. Differences between student and faculty responses were calculated.Results: There were 608 student and 114 faculty responses. There was a statistically significant difference between mean student and faculty responses for 13 of the 22 skills. For 10 of these skills, students rated their own skill proficiency higher than faculty expectations. For 3 of the skills, faculty rated their expectations higher than students' perceived proficiency. Conclusions:For pharmacology skills, student ratings were low, indicating an area to focus curriculum development. Items where student ratings are higher than faculty may be a result of overconfidence or a lack of understanding by faculty of students' abilities. Formal assessment of skills in these areas would help clarify the reason and direct faculty and curriculum development.

No abstract

6. On page 140, the fifth sentence of the results section should read: The mean NBME scaled score for the entire cohort was 68.3 (SD-9.66). 7. On page 141 in the table, the Pearson's Correlation coefficient for "NBME (raw) V1 EM M4" should be 0.53 and "NBME (scaled) V1 EM M4" 0.43.

No abstract