Background: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) caused widespread clinical disease, triggering limited in-person gatherings and social-distancing guidelines to minimize transmission. These regulations led most emergency medicine (EM)residency training programs to rapidly transition to virtual didactics. We sought to evaluate EM resident perceptions of the effects of COVID-19 on their didactic and clinical education.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey study at seven EM residency programs using a mixed-methods approach designed to understand resident perceptions regarding the impact of COVID-19 on their educational experience. Quantitative data were presented as percentages with comparison of subgroups, while open-ended responses were analyzed using qualitative methodology. Results:We achieved a 59% response rate (187/313). The majority of respondents (119/182, 65.4%) reported that the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on their residency education with junior residents disproportionately affected. A total of 81 of 182 (44.5%) participants reported that one or more of their clinical rotations were partially or completely canceled due to the pandemic. Additionally, we identified four themes and 34 subthemes highlighting the contextual effects of the pandemic, which were then divided into positive and negative influences on the residency experience. The four themes include systems experience, clinical experience, didactic experience, and wellness. Conclusion:Our study examined the impact of COVID-19 on residents' educational experiences. We found overall mixed responses with a slightly negative impact on residency education, wellness, and clinical rotations, while satisfaction with EM as a career choice was increased. Factors influencing this included systems, clinical, and didactic experiences as well as overall wellness.
Background The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires all emergency medicine (EM) training programs to evaluate resident performance and also requires core faculty to attend didactic conference. Assuring faculty participation in these activities can be challenging. Previously, our institution did not have a formal tracking program nor financial incentive for participation in these activities. In 2017, we initiated an educational dashboard which tracked and published all full-time university faculty conference attendance and participation in resident evaluations and other educational activities. Objectives We sought to determine if the implementation of a financially-incentivized educational dashboard would lead to an increase in faculty conference attendance and the number of completed resident evaluations. Methods We conducted a pre- and post-intervention observational study at our EM residency training program between July 2017 and July 2019. Participants were 17 full-time EM attendings at one training site. We compared the number of completed online resident evaluations (MedHub) and number of conference days attended (call-in verification) before and after the introduction of our financial incentive in June 2018. The incentive required 100% completion of resident evaluations and at least 25% attendance at eligible didactic conference days. We calculated pre- and post-intervention averages, and comparisons were made using a chi-square test. Results Prior to implementation of the intervention, the 90-day resident evaluation completion rate was 71.8%. This increased to 100% after implementation (p < 0.001). Conference attendance prior to implementation was 43.8%, which remained unchanged at 41.3% after implementation of the financial incentive (p = 0.920). Conclusions Attaching a financial incentive to a tracked educational dashboard increased faculty participation in resident evaluations but did not change conference attendance. This difference likely reflects the minimum thresholds required to obtain the financial incentive.
Background Competence in teaching procedural skills is required for faculty in all specialties. Regardless of involvement in undergraduate medical education (UME) versus graduate medical education (GME), faculty will likely be involved in teaching procedures to novice learners at some point, with the goal of having the learner achieve graduated independence and technical competence in a skill set. A large body of literature exists addressing the best practices for teaching and maintaining procedural skills. We searched for articles that describe the best practices for teaching procedural skills to all levels of learners. Methods We conducted a literature search for papers on procedural skills training and teaching. We also made a call for papers on social media from members of the online #MedEd and #FOAMed communities. Once a list of the articles was compiled, we conducted a three‐round modified Delphi process to identify those illustrating best practices for teaching procedural skills by both junior and senior faculty. Results We identified 98 relevant articles on the topic of procedural skills training. Six articles were deemed to be highly relevant after three rounds of the modified Delphi. Best practices included using an established educational framework when designing procedural skills teaching sessions, providing positive feedback to learners with opportunities for improvement, and demonstrating the procedure to the learners. Conclusions Medical educators should employ evidence‐based practices when designing and delivering procedural skills sessions. Educational frameworks provide faculty developers and facilitators with an organized approach to teaching these sessions. Maintenance of procedural skills over time is key; faculty can utilize simulation‐based procedural training and deliberate practice to prevent decay of learned skills.
Audience: This corneal foreign body simulator is designed to instruct junior emergency medicine (EM) residents and medical students with an interest in emergency medicine.
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.