Applicant Reactions to the AAMC Standardized Video Interview During the 2018 Application Cycle

PURPOSE: This study examined applicant reactions to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Standardized Video Interview (SVI) during its first year of operational use in emergency medicine (EM) residency program selection in order to identify strategies to improve applicants\u27 SVI experience and attitudes. METHOD: Individuals who self-classified as EM applicants applying in the Electronic Residency Application Service 2018 cycle and completed the SVI in summer 2017 were invited to participate in two surveys. Survey 1, which focused on procedural issues, was administered immediately after SVI completion. Survey 2, which focused on applicants\u27 SVI experience, was administered in fall 2017, after SVI scores were released. RESULTS: The response rates for surveys 1 and 2 were 82.3% (2,906/3,532) and 58.7% (2,074/3,532), respectively. Applicant reactions varied by aspect of the SVI studied and their SVI total scores. Most applicants were satisfied with most procedural aspects of the SVI, but most applicants were not satisfied with the SVI overall or with their total SVI scores. About 20-30% of applicants had neutral opinions about most aspects of the SVI. Negative reactions to the SVI were stronger for applicants who scored lower on the SVI. CONCLUSIONS: Applicants had generally negative reactions to the SVI. Most were skeptical of its ability to assess the target competencies and its potential to add value to the selection process. Applicant acceptance and appreciation of the SVI will be critical to the SVI\u27s acceptance by the graduate medical education community

The AAMC Standardized Video Interview: Reactions and Use by Residency Programs During the 2018 Application Cycle

PURPOSE: To evaluate how emergency medicine (EM) residency programs perceived and used Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) SVI total scores and videos during the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) 2018 cycle. METHOD: Study 1 (November 2017) used a program director survey to evaluate user reactions to the SVI following the first year of operational use. Study 2 (January 2018) analyzed program usage of SVI video responses using data collected through the AAMC Program Director\u27s Workstation. RESULTS: Results from the survey (125/175 programs, 71% response rate) and video usage analysis suggested programs viewed videos out of curiosity and to understand the range of SVI total scores. Programs were more likely to view videos for attendees of U.S. MD-granting medical schools and applicants with higher United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores, but there were no differences by gender or race/ethnicity. More than half of programs that did not use SVI total scores in their selection processes were unsure of how to incorporate them (36/58, 62%) and wanted additional research on utility (33/58, 57%). More than half of programs indicated being at least somewhat likely to use SVI total scores (55/97; 57%) and videos (52/99; 53%) in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Program reactions on the utility and ease of use of SVI total scores were mixed. Survey results indicate programs used the SVI cautiously in their selection processes, consistent with AAMC recommendations. Future surveys of SVI users will help the AAMC gauge improvements in user acceptance and familiarity with the SVI

We Need Our Village: CORD’s Response to the ACGME’s Common Program Requirements

This editorial addresses concerns of program directors that the new program requirements by the ACGME will adversely affect emergency medicine faculty and resident training.  In this editorial, we address the specific concerns of program directors in emergency medicine

Beyond Test Scores and Medical Knowledge: The Standardized Video Interview, an Innovative and Ethical Approach for Holistic Assessment of Applicants

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Standardized Video Interview (SVI) is an asynchronous video interview in which interviewees provide audio/video responses to text-based questions. The SVI contains six questions targeting two Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies: Interpersonal and Communication Skills and (Knowledge of) Professionalism. The SVI evolved from calls in the residency community to consider factors beyond United States Medical Licensing Exam scores and to develop new tools for selecting residents.1 The leading academic societies in emergency medicine (EM) partnered with the AAMC to develop and evaluate the SVI in a longitudinal, multiphased approach

Ready for Discharge? A Survey of Discharge Transition of Care Education and Evaluation in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs

This study aimed to assess current education and practices of emergency medicine (EM) residents as perceived by EM program directors to determine if there are deficits in resident discharge handoff training. This survey study was guided by the Kern model for medical curriculum development. A six-member Council of EM Residency Directors (CORD) Transitions of Care task force of EM physicians performed these steps and constructed a survey. The survey was distributed to program residency directors via the CORD listserve and/or direct contact. There were 119 responses to the survey, which were collected using an online survey tool. Over 71% of the 167 American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited EM residency programs were represented. Of those responding, 42.9% of programs reported formal training regarding discharges during initial orientation and 5.9% reported structured curriculum outside of orientation. A majority (73.9%) of programs reported that EM residents were not routinely evaluated on their discharge proficiency. Despite the ACGME requirements requiring formal handoff curriculum and evaluation, many programs do not provide formal curriculum on the discharge transition of care or evaluate EM residents on their discharge proficiency

Ready for discharge? A Survey of Discharge Transition of Care Education and Evaluation in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs

This study aimed to assess current education and practices of emergency medicine (EM) residents as perceived by EM program directors to determine if there are deficits in resident discharge handoff training. This survey study was guided by the Kern model for medical curriculum development. A six-member Council of EM Residency Directors (CORD) Transitions of Care task force of EM physicians performed these steps and constructed a survey. The survey was distributed to program residency directors via the CORD listserve and/or direct contact. There were 119 responses to the survey, which were collected using an online survey tool. Over 71% of the 167 American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited EM residency programs were represented. Of those responding, 42.9% of programs reported formal training regarding discharges during initial orientation and 5.9% reported structured curriculum outside of orientation. A majority (73.9%) of programs reported that EM residents were not routinely evaluated on their discharge proficiency. Despite the ACGME requirements requiring formal handoff curriculum and evaluation, many programs do not provide formal curriculum on the discharge transition of care or evaluate EM residents on their discharge proficiency

The AAMC Standardized Video Interview: Lessons Learned From the Residency Selection Process

Calls to change the residency selection process have increased in recent years, with many focusing on the need for holistic review and alternatives to academic metrics. One aspect of applicant performance to consider in holistic review is proficiency in behavioral competencies. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) developed the AAMC Standardized Video Interview (SVI), an online, asynchronous video interview that assesses applicants\u27 knowledge of professionalism and their interpersonal and communication skills. The AAMC worked with the emergency medicine community to pilot the SVI. Data from 4 years of research (Electronic Residency Application Service [ERAS] 2017-2020 cycles) show the SVI is a reliable, valid assessment of these behavioral competencies. It provides information not available in the ERAS application packet, and it does not disadvantage individuals or groups. Yet despite the SVI\u27s psychometric properties, the AAMC elected not to renew or expand the pilot in residency selection.In this Invited Commentary, the authors share lessons learned from the AAMC SVI project about introducing a new tool for use in residency selection. They recommend that future projects endeavoring to find ways to support holistic review engage all stakeholders from the start; communicate the value of the new tool early and often; make direct comparisons with existing tools; give new tools time and space to succeed; strike a balance between early adopters and broad participation; help stakeholders understand the limitations of what a tool can do; and set clear expectations about both stakeholder input and pricing. They encourage the medical education community to learn from the SVI project and to consider future partnerships with the AAMC or other specialty organizations to develop new tools and approaches that prioritize the community\u27s needs. Finding solutions to the challenges facing residency selection should be a priority for all stakeholders

Factors associated with emergency physician income

Abstract Objective Income fairness is important, but there are limited data that describe income equity among emergency physicians. Understanding the magnitude of and factors associated with income differences may be helpful in eliminating disparities. This study analyzed the associations of demographic factors, training, practice setting, and board certification with emergency physician income. Methods We distributed a survey to professional members of the American College of Emergency Physicians. The survey included questions on annual income, educational background, practice characteristics, gender, age, race, ethnicity, international medical graduate status, type of medical degree (MD vs DO), completion of a subspecialty fellowship, job characteristics, and board certification. Respondents also reported annual income. We used linear regression to determine the respondent characteristics associated with reported annual income. Results From 45,961 members we received 3407 responses (7.4%); 2350 contained complete data for regression analysis. The mean reported annual income was $315,306 (95$310,649 to $319,964). The mean age of the respondents was 47.4 years, 37.4$43,565, 95% CI, −$52,217 to −$34,913. Physician age, degree (MD vs DO), underrepresented racial minority status, and underrepresented ethnic minority status were not associated with annual income. Fellowship training was associated with lower income; Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) program difference −$30,048; 95$48,183 to −$11,912, non‐ACGME‐program difference −$27,640, 95% CI, −$40,970 to −$14,257. Working at a for‐profit institution was associated with higher income; difference $12,290, 95$3693 to $20,888. Board certification was associated with higher income; difference,$43,267, 95% CI, $30,767 to$55,767. Conclusions This study identified income disparities associated with gender, practice setting, fellowship completion, and American Board of Emergency Medicine or American Osteopathic Board of Emergency Medicine certification

The Emergency Medicine Physician Workforce: Projections for 2030.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to determine the current and projected supply in 2030 of contributors to emergency care, including emergency residency-trained and board-certified physicians, other physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. In addition, this study was designed to determine the current and projected demand for residency-trained, board-certified emergency physicians. METHODS: To forecast future workforce supply and demand, sources of existing data were used, assumptions based on past and potential future trends were determined, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine how the final forecast would be subject to variance in the baseline inputs and assumptions. Methods included: (1) estimates of the baseline workforce supply of physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants; (2) estimates of future changes in the raw numbers of persons entering and leaving that workforce; (3) estimates of the productivity of the workforce; and (4) estimates of the demand for emergency care services. The methodology assumes supply equals demand in the base year and estimates the change between the base year and 2030; it then compares supply and demand in 2030 under different scenarios. RESULTS: The task force consensus was that the most likely future scenario is described by: 2% annual graduate medical education growth, 3% annual emergency physician attrition, 20% encounters seen by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, and 11% increase in emergency department visits relative to 2018. This scenario would result in a surplus of 7,845 emergency physicians in 2030. CONCLUSION: The specialty of emergency medicine is facing the likely oversupply of emergency physicians in 2030. The factors leading to this include the increasing supply of and changing demand for emergency physicians. An organized, collective approach to a balanced workforce by the specialty of emergency medicine is imperative

Choosing emergency medicine: Influences on medical students’ choice of emergency medicine

<div><p>Background</p><p>Relatively little is understood about which factors influence students’ choice of specialty and when learners ultimately make this decision.</p><p>Objective</p><p>The objective is to understand how experiences of medical students relate to the timing of selection of Emergency Medicine (EM) as a specialty. Of specific interest were factors such as how earlier and more positive specialty exposure may impact the decision-making process of medical students.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A cross-sectional survey study of EM bound 4th year US medical students (MD and DO) was performed exploring when and why students choose EM as their specialty. An electronic survey was distributed in March 2015 to all medical students who applied to an EM residency at 4 programs representing different geographical regions. Descriptive analyses and multinomial logistic regressions were performed.</p><p>Results</p><p>793/1372 (58%) responded. Over half had EM experience prior to medical school. When students selected EM varied: 13.9% prior to, 50.4% during, and 35.7% after their M3 year. Early exposure, presence of an EM residency program, previous employment in the ED, experience as a pre-hospital provider, and completion of an M3 EM clerkship were associated with earlier selection. Delayed exposure to EM was associated with later selection of EM.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Early exposure and prior life experiences were associated with choosing EM earlier in medical school. The third year was identified as the most common time for definitively choosing the specialty.</p></div