The Relationship Between ACGME Duty Hour Requirements and Performance on the American Board of Emergency Medicine Qualifying Examination

Background  In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) instituted requirements that limited the number of hours residents could spend on duty, and in 2011, it revised these requirements. Objective  This study explored whether the implementation of the 2003 and 2011 duty hour limits was associated with a change in emergency medicine residents\u27 performance on the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) Qualifying Examination (QE). Methods  Beginning with the 1999 QE and ending with the 2014 QE, candidates for whom all training occurred without duty hour requirements (Group A), candidates under the first set of duty hour requirements (Group C), and candidates under the second set of duty hour requirements (Group E) were compared. Comparisons included mean scores and pass rates. Results  In Group A, 5690 candidates completed the examination, with a mean score of 82.8 and a 90.2% pass rate. In Group C, 8333 candidates had a mean score of 82.4 and a 90.5% pass rate. In Group E, there were 1269 candidates, with a mean score of 82.5 and an 89.4% pass rate. There was a small but statistically significant decrease in the mean scores (0.04, P \u3c .001) after implementation of the first duty hour requirements, but this difference did not occur after implementation of the 2011 standards. There was no difference among pass rates for any of the study groups (χ2 = 1.68, P = .43). Conclusions  We did not identify an association between the 2003 and 2011 ACGME duty hour requirements and performance of test takers on the ABEM QE

The Relationship Between ACGME Duty Hour Requirements and Performance on the American Board of Emergency Medicine Qualifying Examination

Background  In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) instituted requirements that limited the number of hours residents could spend on duty, and in 2011, it revised these requirements. Objective  This study explored whether the implementation of the 2003 and 2011 duty hour limits was associated with a change in emergency medicine residents\u27 performance on the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) Qualifying Examination (QE). Methods  Beginning with the 1999 QE and ending with the 2014 QE, candidates for whom all training occurred without duty hour requirements (Group A), candidates under the first set of duty hour requirements (Group C), and candidates under the second set of duty hour requirements (Group E) were compared. Comparisons included mean scores and pass rates. Results  In Group A, 5690 candidates completed the examination, with a mean score of 82.8 and a 90.2% pass rate. In Group C, 8333 candidates had a mean score of 82.4 and a 90.5% pass rate. In Group E, there were 1269 candidates, with a mean score of 82.5 and an 89.4% pass rate. There was a small but statistically significant decrease in the mean scores (0.04, P \u3c .001) after implementation of the first duty hour requirements, but this difference did not occur after implementation of the 2011 standards. There was no difference among pass rates for any of the study groups (χ2 = 1.68, P = .43). Conclusions  We did not identify an association between the 2003 and 2011 ACGME duty hour requirements and performance of test takers on the ABEM QE

The American Board of Emergency Medicine ConCert Examination: Emergency Physicians\u27 Perceptions of Learning and Career Benefits

This was a prospective survey study. A voluntary postexamination survey was administered at the end of the 2015 ABEM ConCert examination (September 21–26, 2015). Physicians were asked about the benefits of preparing for the examination and maintaining ABEM certification. Examination performance was compared to perceptions of learning and career benefits. Results Of the 2,601 on-time test takers, 2,511 respondents participated (96.5% participation rate). The majority of participants (92.0%) identified a benefit to preparing for the ConCert examination, which included reinforced medical knowledge (73.9%), increased knowledge (66.8%), and making them a better clinician (39.4%). The majority of respondents (90.8%) identified a career benefit of maintaining ABEM certification, which included more employment options (73.8%), more positively viewed by other physicians (56.8%), and better financial outcomes (29.8%). There was a statistically significant association between the perception of knowledge reinforcement and examination performance (p \u3c 0.001). There was also a statistically significant association between the perception that staying certified created more career opportunities and examination performance (p \u3c 0.001). Conclusions Most emergency physicians identified benefits of preparing for and taking the ABEM ConCert examination, which included reinforcing or adding medical knowledge and making them better clinicians. Most physicians also found career benefits to remaining ABEM-certified, which included greater employment choices, higher financial compensation, and higher esteem from other physicians. The belief that preparing for and taking the examination reinforced medical knowledge was associated with better examination performance

The American Board of Emergency Medicine ConCert Examination: Emergency Physicians\u27 Perceptions of Learning and Career Benefits

This was a prospective survey study. A voluntary postexamination survey was administered at the end of the 2015 ABEM ConCert examination (September 21–26, 2015). Physicians were asked about the benefits of preparing for the examination and maintaining ABEM certification. Examination performance was compared to perceptions of learning and career benefits. Results Of the 2,601 on-time test takers, 2,511 respondents participated (96.5% participation rate). The majority of participants (92.0%) identified a benefit to preparing for the ConCert examination, which included reinforced medical knowledge (73.9%), increased knowledge (66.8%), and making them a better clinician (39.4%). The majority of respondents (90.8%) identified a career benefit of maintaining ABEM certification, which included more employment options (73.8%), more positively viewed by other physicians (56.8%), and better financial outcomes (29.8%). There was a statistically significant association between the perception of knowledge reinforcement and examination performance (p \u3c 0.001). There was also a statistically significant association between the perception that staying certified created more career opportunities and examination performance (p \u3c 0.001). Conclusions Most emergency physicians identified benefits of preparing for and taking the ABEM ConCert examination, which included reinforcing or adding medical knowledge and making them better clinicians. Most physicians also found career benefits to remaining ABEM-certified, which included greater employment choices, higher financial compensation, and higher esteem from other physicians. The belief that preparing for and taking the examination reinforced medical knowledge was associated with better examination performance

Physician Preparation for the American Board of Emergency Medicine ConCert Examination

Objectives To maintain certification by the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM), physicians are required to pass the Continuous Certification (ConCert) examination at least every 10 years. On the 2014 ConCert postexamination survey, ABEM sought to understand the manner in which ABEM diplomates prepared for the test and to identify associations between test preparation approaches and performance on the ConCert examination. Methods This was a cross-sectional survey study. The survey was administered at the end of the 2014 ConCert examination. Analyses included chi-square and linear regression to determine the association of preparation methods with performance. Results Of the 2,431 on-time test-takers, 2,338 (96.2%) were included. The most commonly used study approach was the review of written materials designed for test preparation (1,585; 67.8%), followed by an online training course (1,006; 43.0%). There were 758 (32.4%) physicians who took a single onsite board review course, while 41 (1.8%) took two or more onsite courses. Most physicians (1,611; 68.9%) spent over 35 hours preparing for the ConCert examination. The study method that was most associated with favorable test scores was the review of written materials designed for test preparation (p \u3c 0.001). Attending an onsite preparation course was associated with poorer performance (p \u3c 0.001). There was a significant association between no additional preparation and failing the examination (chi-square with Yates correction; p = 0.001). Conclusions A substantial majority (97.8%) of physicians taking the 2014 ABEM ConCert examination prepared for it. The majority of physicians used written materials specifically designed for test preparation. Reviewing written materials designed for test preparation was associated with the highest performance

Comparison of performance data between emergency medicine 1‐3 and 1‐4 program formats

Abstract Objective This study compares performance data from physicians completing 3‐year versus 4‐year emergency medicine residency training programs. Currently, there are 2 training formats and little is known about objective performance differences. Methods This was a retrospective cross‐sectional analysis of emergency residents and physicians. Multiple analyses were conducted comparing physicians’ performances, including Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education Milestones and American Board of Emergency Medicine In‐training Examination (ITE), Qualifying Examination (QE), Oral Certification Examination (OCE), and program extensions from 3‐year and 4‐year residency programs. Some confounding variables were not or could not be considered, such as rationale for medical students to choose one format over another, as well as application and final match rates. Results Milestone scores are higher for emergency medicine 3 residents in 1‐3 programs (3.51) versus emergency medicine 3 residents in 1‐4 programs (3.07; P < 0.001, d = 1.47) and highest for emergency medicine 4 residents (3.67). There was no significant difference in program extension rates (emergency medicine 1‐3, 8.1%; emergency medicine 1‐4, 9.6%; P = 0.05, ω = 0.02). ITE scores were higher for emergency medicine 1, 2, and 3 residents from 1‐3 programs and emergency medicine 4 residents from 1‐4 programs scored highest. Mean QE score was slightly higher for emergency 1‐3 physicians (83.55 vs 83.00; P < 0.01, d = 0.10). QE pass rate was higher for emergency 1‐3 physicians (93.1% vs 90.8%; P < 0.001, ω = 0.08). Mean OCE score was slightly higher for emergency 1‐4 physicians (5.67 vs 5.65; P = 0.03, d = –0.07) but did not reach a priori statistical significance (α < 0.01). OCE pass rate was also slightly higher for emergency 1‐4 physicians (96.9% vs 95.5%; P = 0.06, ω = –0.07) but also non‐significant. Conclusions These results suggest that although performance measures demonstrate small differences between physicians from emergency medicine 1‐3 and 1‐4 programs, these differences are limited in their ability to make causal claims about performance on the basis of program format alone

American Board of Emergency Medicine Report on Residency and Fellowship Training Information (2016-2017)

The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) gathers extensive information on emergency medicine residency programs and the residents training in those programs. Survey data are collected annually from all emergency medicine programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Selected parts of the data are reported in this article.† Also included in this report is information on accredited emergency medicine–sponsored fellowship programs reported by the ACGME