Introduction: Simulation is increasingly utilized in medical education promoting active learning and retention, however increasing use also requires considerable instructor resources.

Simulation may provide a safe environment for students to teach each other, which many will need to do when they enter residency. Along with reinforcing learning and increasing retention, peer teaching could decrease instructor demands. The objective was to determine the effectiveness of peer taught simulation compared to physician-led simulation. We hypothesized that peer-taught simulation would lead to equivalent knowledge acquisition when compared to physician-taught sessions and would be viewed positively by participants.

Method: This was a quasi-experimental study in an emergency medicine clerkship. The control group was faculty taught. In the peer-taught intervention group, students were assigned to teach one of the three simulation-based medical emergency cases. Each student was instructed to master their topic and teach it to their peers using the provided objectives and resource materials. The students were assigned to groups of three, with all three cases represented; students took turns leading their case. Three groups ran simultaneously. During the intervention sessions, one physician was present to monitor the accuracy of learning and to answer questions, while three physicians were required for the control groups. Outcomes compared pre-test and post-test knowledge and student reaction between control and intervention groups.

Results: Both methods led to equally improved knowledge; mean score for the post-test was 75% for both groups (p=0.6) and were viewed positively. Students in the intervention group agreed that peer-directed learning was an effective way to learn. However, students in the control group scored their simulation experience more favorably.

Conclusion: In general, students’ response to peer teaching was positive, students learned equally well, and found peer-taught sessions to be interactive and beneficial.

Introduction: Feedback provides valuable input for improving physician performance. Conventionally, feedback is obtained from attending physicians; however, residents work in close contact with other members of the care team, especially nurses. Nurses may have more opportunity to directly observe trainees. In addition, they may value different behaviors and provide unique feedback. The objective of this study was to examine the nurse’s perspective of resident performance in the emergency department.

Methods: This was a retrospective, mixed-methods study of nursing assessments of residents using a  five-point scale from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (outstanding) and providing comments. Analysis included descriptive statistics of the quantitative assessments and content analysis of the nursing comments by a group of attendings, residents, and nurses. 

Results: Nurses assessed residents as above expectation or outstanding, especially for the categories of “How would you rate this resident’s attitude?” (65%) and “Is this resident a team player?” (64%). Content analysis of the comments yielded nine themes including being kind, communication with nurses, being a team player, work ethic and efficiency, and respect for other team members. Of the comments made, 50% provided positive feedback, and the majority of comments (80%) were determined to be actionable.

Conclusion: Our data indicate that nurses provide feedback on residents’ kindness, efficiency and communication. These two aspects of interacting in the healthcare setting may not be highlighted in conventional, attending provider feedback, yet they are clearly noted by the nurse’s voice.

Introduction: Feedback provides valuable input for improving physician performance. Conventionally, feedback is obtained from attending physicians; however, residents work in close contact with other members of the care team, especially nurses. Nurses may have more opportunity to directly observe trainees. In addition, they may value different behaviors and provide unique feedback. The objective of this study was to examine the nurse’s perspective of resident performance in the emergency department.

Methods: This was a retrospective, mixed-methods study of nursing assessments of residents using a  five-point scale from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (outstanding) and providing comments. Analysis included descriptive statistics of the quantitative assessments and content analysis of the nursing comments by a group of attendings, residents, and nurses.

Results: Nurses assessed residents as above expectation or outstanding, especially for the categories of “How would you rate this resident’s attitude?” (65%) and “Is this resident a team player?” (64%). Content analysis of the comments yielded nine themes including being kind, communication with nurses, being a team player, work ethic and efficiency, and respect for other team members. Of the comments made, 50% provided positive feedback, and the majority of comments (80%) were determined to be actionable.

Conclusion: Our data indicate that nurses provide feedback on residents’ kindness, efficiency and communication. These two aspects of interacting in the healthcare setting may not be highlighted in conventional, attending provider feedback, yet they are clearly noted by the nurse’s voice.

Introduction: Medical student mistreatment is a prevalent and significant challenge for medical schools across the country, associated with negative emotional and professional consequences for students. The Association of American Medical Colleges and Liaison Committee on Medical Education have increasingly emphasized the issue of mistreatment in recent years, and medical schools are tasked with creating a positive learning climate.

Methods: The authors describe the efforts of an emergency department (ED) to improve its clerkship learning environment, using a multifaceted approach for collecting mistreatment data and relaying them to educators and clerkship leadership. Data are gathered through end-of-rotation evaluations, teaching evaluations, and an online reporting system available to medical students. Mistreatment data are then relayed to the ED during semi-annual meetings between clerkship leadership and medical school assistant deans, and through annual mistreatment reports provided to department chairs.

Results: Over a two-year period, students submitted a total of 56 narrative comments related to mistreatment or unprofessional behavior during their emergency medicine (EM) clerkship. Of these comments, 12 were submitted in 2015-16 and 44 were submitted in 2016-17. The most frequently observed themes were students feeling ignored or marginalized by faculty (14 comments); students being prevented from speaking or working with patients and/or attending faculty (11 comments); and students being treated in an unprofessional manner by staff (other than faculty, 8 comments).

Conclusion: This article details an ED’s efforts to improve its EM clerkship learning environment by tracking mistreatment data and intentionally communicating the results to educators and clerkship leadership. Continued mistreatment data collection and faculty development will be necessary for these efforts to have a measurable effect on the learning environment.

Introduction: In 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.

Objectives: The 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.

Method: In 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.

Results: A 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.

Conclusion: Students who successfully matched in EM performed better on all three exams at the end of their EM clerkship.

Introducation: It is essential for faculty to receive feedback on their teaching for the purpose of improvement as well as promotion. It can be challenging to motivate students to provide feedback to preceptors and fill out evaluation forms when not a clerkship requirement. Furthermore, there is concern that making the evaluations a requirement can compromise the quality of the feedback. The objective of this study was to identify an increase in the number of faculty and resident evaluations completed by students rotating through their Emergency Medicine clerkship following the implementation of a tit-for-tat incentive strategy.

Method: Prior to the implementation of Tit-for-Tat, students rotating through their emergency medicine clerkship were asked to fill out evaluations of residents and faculty members with whom they worked. These were encouraged but voluntary. Beginning in the 2014-2015 academic year, a tit-for-tat strategy was employed whereby students had to complete a resident or faculty evaluation in order to view the student assessment completed by that resident or faculty preceptor.

Results: Students submitted 1101 evaluations in the control, with a mean of 3.60 evaluations completed per student and 3.77 evaluations received per preceptor. Following the implementation of tit-for-tat, students submitted 2736 evaluations, with a mean of 8.19 evaluations completed per student and 7.52 evaluations received per preceptor. Both the increase in evaluations completed per student and evaluations received per preceptor were statistically significant with p-value <0.001.

Conclusion: The tit-for-tat strategy significantly increased the number of evaluations submitted by students rotating through their emergency medicine clerkship. This has served as an effective tool to increase the overall number of evaluations completed, the number of evaluations each instructor received on average and the proportion of students that completed evaluations. Further work could be done to attempt to better assess the quality of the feedback from these evaluations.  [West J Emerg Med. 2017; XX(X)–0.]

Introduction: Faculty 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.

Methods: A 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.

Results: Faculty (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.

Conclusion: In 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

Methods

Results

Discussion

Introduction: Transitioning from the pre-clinical environment to clerkships poses a challenge to students and educators alike. Students along with faculty developed the Clinical Reasoning Elective (CRE) to provide pre-clinical students exposure to patients in the emergency department and the opportunity to build illness scripts and practice clinical skills with longitudinal mentorship in a low-stakes environment before entering clerkships. It is a voluntary program. Each year, the CRE has received overwhelming positive feedback from students. The objective of this study is to determine if the CRE improved students’ clinical skills and reported comfort in their skills. 

Methods: We examined the relationships between students’ self-reported participation in the CRE and their individual scores on a comprehensive clinical assessment (CCA) at the end of the pre-clerkship period. A total of 178 students took the CCA exam in 2016. Of these, 113 participated in the CRE and 65 did not. Seven students who participated in CRE did not complete the exit survey and were omitted from analysis. We performed unstandardized regressions and dichotomous (participants/nonparticipants) comparisons of means with t-tests. Survey of student reactions was collected. 

Results: Participants completed an average of 10 sessions over the course of the program (range=1-20). Involvement in the CRE was associated with significantly increased scores on Abdominal History; Pulmonary Physical Exam; Overall History-Taking; Overall Communication; and Overall Physical Exam (p<0.05). Nearly all students (97%) reported that the program offered opportunities to enhance clinical skills, increased their comfort with patients, and better prepared them for their clinical years.

Conclusion: There were measurable improvements in clinical skills performance for students who participated in CRE. As many schools seek to incorporate early clinical exposure to their curricula, this program provides a successful framework to provide meaningful clinical exposure to real patients that also shows objective benefits to students’ clinical skills.

Introduction: Since 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.

Methods: From 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.

Results: 303 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. 

Conclusion: There was moderate positive correlation of student scores on the EM-ACE exam and the National EM M4 Exams. [West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(1):–0.]