Introduction: Despite the extraordinary amount of time physicians spend communicating withpatients, dedicated education strategies on this topic are lacking. The objective of this study was todevelop a multimodal curriculum including direct patient feedback and assess whether it improvescommunication skills as measured by the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) in fourth-yearmedical students during an emergency medicine (EM) clerkship.

Methods: This was a prospective, randomized trial of fourth-year students in an EM clerkship atan academic medical center from 2016-2017. We developed a multimodal curriculum to teachcommunication skills consisting of 1) an asynchronous video on communication skills, and 2)direct patient feedback from the CAT, a 15-question tool with validity evidence in the emergencydepartment setting. The intervention group received the curriculum at the clerkship midpoint. Thecontrol group received the curriculum at the clerkship’s end. We calculated proportions and oddsratios (OR) of students achieving maximum CAT score in the first and second half of the clerkship.

Results: A total of 64 students were enrolled: 37 in the control group and 27 in the interventiongroup. The percentage of students achieving the maximum CAT score was similar between groupsduring the first half (OR 0.70, p = 0.15). Following the intervention, students in the intervention groupachieved a maximum score more often than the control group (OR 1.65, p = 0.008).

Conclusion: Students exposed to the curriculum early had higher patient ratings on communicationcompared to the control group. A multimodal curriculum involving direct patient feedback may be aneffective means of teaching communication skills.

Introduction: Emergency physicians (EP) experience high rates of workplace violence, the risks of which increase with the presence of weapons. Up to 25% of trauma patients brought to the emergency department (ED) have been found to carry weapons. Given these risks, we conducted an educational needs assessment to characterize EPs’ knowledge of firearms, frequency of encountering firearms in the ED, and level of confidence with safely removing firearms from patient care settings.

Methods: This was a survey study of attending and resident EPs at two academic and four community hospitals in the Midwest and Northeast. A 26-item questionnaire was emailed to all EPs at the six institutions. Questions pertained to EPs’ knowledge of firearms, experience with handling firearms, and exposure to firearms while at work. We calculated response proportions and p-values.

Results: Of 243 recipients who received the survey, 149 (61.3%) completed it. Thirty-three respondents (22.0%) reported encountering firearms in the workplace, 91 (60.7%) reported never handling firearms, and 25 (16.7%) reported handling firearms at least once per year. Thirty-six respondents (24.0%) reported formal firearms training, and 63 (42.3%) reported no firearms training. There were no significant regional differences regarding firearms training or exposure. Residents from the Northeast were more likely to be moderately confident that they could safely handle a firearm prior to law enforcement involvement (p=0.043), while residents from the Midwest were more likely to be not at all confident (p=0.018).

Conclusion: The majority of surveyed attending and resident EPs reported little experience with handling firearms. Among resident EPs, there was a regional difference in confidence in handling firearms prior to law enforcement involvement. Given the realities of workplace violence and the frequency with which firearms are encountered in the ED, further investigation is needed to evaluate provider competence in safely handling them. EPs may benefit from training on this topic.

Introduction: Chest pain is a common emergency department (ED) presentation accounting for 8-10million visits per year in the United States. Physician-level factors such as risk tolerance are predictive ofadmission rates. The recent advent of accelerated diagnostic pathways and ED observation units mayhave an impact in reducing variation in admission rates on the individual physician level.

Methods: We conducted a single-institution retrospective observational study of ED patients with adiagnosis of chest pain as determined by diagnostic code from our hospital administrative database.We included ED visits from 2012 and 2013. Patients with an elevated troponin or an electrocardiogram(ECG) demonstrating an ST elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Patients were divided into twogroups: “admission” (this included observation and inpatients) and “discharged.” We stratified physiciansby age, gender, residency location, and years since medical school. We controlled for patient- andhospital-related factors including age, gender, race, insurance status, daily ED volume, and lab values.

Results: Of 4,577 patients with documented dispositions, 3,252 (70.9%) were either admitted to thehospital or into observation (in an ED observation unit or in the hospital), while 1,333 (29.1%) weredischarged. Median number of patients per physician was 132 (interquartile range 89-172). Averageadmission rate was 73.7±9.5% ranging from 54% to 96%. Of the 3,252 admissions, 2,638 (81.1%) wereto observation. There was significant variation in the admission rate at the individual physician level withadjusted odds ratio ranging from 0.42 to 5.8 as compared to the average admission. Among physicians’characteristics, years elapsed since finishing medical school demonstrated a trend towards associationwith a higher admission probability.

Conclusion: There is substantial variation among physicians in the management of patients presentingwith chest pain, with physician experience playing a role.

Introduction The structure of the interview day affects applicant interactions with faculty and residents, which can influence the applicant's rank list decision. We aim to determine if there was a difference in matched residents between those interviewing on a day on which didactics were held and had increased resident and faculty presence (Didactic Day) versus an interview day with less availability for applicant interactions with residents and faculty (Non-Didactic Day).

Methods Retrospective study reviewing interview dates of matched residents from 2009-2015.

Results 42 (61.8%) matched residents interviewed on a Didactic Day with increased faculty and resident presence versus 26 (38.2%) on a Non-Didactic interview day with less availability for applicant interactions (p=0.04).

Conclusion There is an association between interviewing on a Didactic Day with increased faculty and resident presence and matching in our program.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion