Advanced topics in emergency medicine: curriculum development and initial evaluation

Back in My Day: A Journal Club Using Landmark Articles for Emergency Medicine-Bound Medical Students

This journal club style curriculum was developed to advance 4th year medical students in Emergency Medicine (EM) Milestone 19. The curriculum was introduced as part of a longitudinal boot camp course for EM- bound students. Students met monthly with faculty members to critically evaluate landmark articles within the field of EM. The curriculum culminated with student group presentations of two contemporary research articles with opposing conclusions. Discussed articles covered the following topics: stroke care, head trauma, cervical spine trauma, pulmonary embolism, cardiology treatments, syncope, post- cardiac arrest care, pediatrics, sepsis, and fluid resuscitation. The curriculum was evaluated using the institution’s standard student educational session evaluation form. Students rated the quality of the sessions highly, and based on thematic review of comments, the journal club was a beneficial addition to the boot camp curriculum.

Ultrasound Training in the Emergency Medicine Clerkship

Introduction

The curriculum in most emergency medicine (EM) clerkships includes very little formalized training in point-of-care ultrasound. Medical schools have begun to implement ultrasound training in the pre-clinical curriculum, and the EM clerkship is an appropriate place to build upon this training. The objectives are (1) to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing a focused ultrasound curriculum within an established EM clerkship and (2) to obtain feedback from medical students regarding the program.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of medical students during an EM clerkship year from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012. Participants included fourth-year medical students (n=45) enrolled in the EM clerkship at our institution. The students underwent a structured program focused on the focused assessment with sonography for trauma exam and ultrasound-guided vascular access. At the conclusion of the rotation, they took a 10-item multiple choice test assessing knowledge and image interpretation skills. A cohort of EM residents (n=20) also took the multiple choice test but did not participate in the training with the students. We used an independent samples t-test to examine differences in test scores between the groups.

Results

The medical students in the ultrasound training program scored significantly higher on the multiple-choice test than the EM residents, t(63)=2.3, p<0.05. The feedback from the students indicated that 82.8% were using ultrasound on their current rotations and the majority (55.2%) felt that the one-on-one scanning shift was the most valuable aspect of the curriculum.

Discussion

Our study demonstrates support for an ultrasound training program for medical students in the EM clerkship. After completing the training, students were able to perform similarly to EM residents on a knowledge-based exam.

How competent are emergency medicine interns for level 1 milestones: who is responsible?

OBJECTIVES

The Next Accreditation System (NAS) of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) includes the implementation of developmental milestones for each specialty. The milestones include five progressively advancing skill levels, with Level 1 defining the skill level of a medical student graduate, and Level 5, that of an attending physician. The goal of this study was to query interns on how well they thought their medical school had prepared them to meet the proposed emergency medicine (EM) Level 1 milestones.

METHODS

In July 2012, an electronic survey was distributed to the interns of 13 EM residency programs, asking interns whether they were taught and assessed on the proposed Level 1 milestones.

RESULTS

Of possible participants, 113 of 161 interns responded (70% response rate). The interns represented all four regions of the country. The interns responded that the rates of Level 1 milestones they had been taught ranged from 61% for ultrasound to 98% for performance of focused history and physical examination. A substantial number of interns (up to 39%) reported no instruction on milestones such as patient disposition, pain management, and vascular access. Graduating medical students were less commonly assessed than taught the milestones. Skills with technology, including "explain the role of the electronic health record and computerized physician order entry," were assessed for only 39% of interns, and knowledge (USMLE) and history and physical were assessed in nearly all interns. Disposition, ultrasound, multitasking, and wound management were assessed less than half of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Many entering EM interns may not have had either teaching or assessment on the knowledge, skills, and behaviors making up the Level 1 milestones expected for graduating medical students. Thus, there is a potential gap in the teaching and assessment of EM interns. Based on these findings, it is unclear who will be responsible (medical schools, EM clerkships, or residency programs) for ensuring that medical students entering residency have achieved Level 1 milestones.

Critical appraisal of emergency medicine educational research: the best publications of 2011

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to critically appraise and highlight medical education research studies published in 2011 that were methodologically superior and whose outcomes were pertinent to teaching and education in emergency medicine (EM).

METHODS

A search of the English language literature in 2011 querying PubMed, Scopus, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsychInfo identified EM studies that used hypothesis-testing or observational investigations of educational interventions. Six reviewers independently ranked all publications based on 10 criteria, including four related to methodology, that were chosen a priori to standardize evaluation by reviewers. This method was used previously to appraise medical education published in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

RESULTS

Forty-eight educational research papers were identified. Comparing the literature of 2011 to that of 2008 through 2010, the number of published educational research papers meeting the criteria increased over time from 30, to 36, to 41, and now to 48. Five medical education research studies met the a priori criteria for inclusion as exemplary and are reviewed and summarized in this article. The number of funded studies remained fairly stable over the past 3 years, at 13 (2008), 16 (2009), 9 (2010), and 13 (2011). As in past years, research involving the use of technology accounted for almost half (n = 22) of the publications. Observational study designs accounted for 28 of the papers, while nine studies featured an experimental design.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty-eight EM educational studies published in 2011 and meeting the criteria were identified. This critical appraisal reviews and highlights five studies that met a priori quality indicators. Current trends and common methodologic pitfalls in the 2011 papers are noted.

A tiered mentorship program improves number of students with an identified mentor

BACKGROUND

Mentorship is critical to professional development and academic success. Unfortunately, only about 40% of medical students can identify a mentor. While group mentorship has been evaluated - the concept of a specialty specific, tiered group mentorship program (TGMP) has not. In the latter, each member of the group represents a unique education or professional level.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of a specialty-specific, tiered group mentorship program to improve mentorship for students interested in emergency medicine.

METHODS

Groups consisted of faculty members, residents, 4th-year students pursuing a career in Emergency Medicine, and junior (MS1, MS2, and MS3) medical students (13 total groups). Students completed confidential electronic surveys before and after completion of the program.

RESULTS

Of 126 students, 85 completed the Course Evaluation Survey. At program onset, 11.4% of 1st-year students, 41.7% of 2nd-year students, 50% of 3rd-year students, and 28% of the total students could identify a mentor. After completion, 68.6% of 1st years, 83.3% of 2nd years, 90% of 3rd years, and 77.6% of the total reported they could identify a mentor. Faculty were rated most important members followed by the 4th-year student.

CONCLUSION

A tiered group mentorship program improved the ability of students to identify a mentor. Students identified mentoring relationships from individuals at various professional levels.