Emergency Medicine Program Directors’ Perspectives on Changes to Step 1 Scoring: Does It Help or Hurt Applicants?

Introduction: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score is one of the few standardized metrics used to objectively review applicants for residency. In February 2020 the USMLE program announced that the numerical Step 1 scoring would be changed to a binary (Pass/Fail) system. In this study we sought to characterize how this change in score reporting will impact the application review process for emergency medicine (EM) program directors (PD).  Methods: In March 2020 we electronically distributed a validated anonymous survey to EM PDs at 236 US EM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Results: Of 236 EM PDs, 121 responded (51.3% response rate). Overall, 72.7% believed binary Step 1 scoring would make the process of objectively comparing applicants more difficult. A minority (19.8%) believed it was a good idea, and 33.1% felt it would improve medical student well-being. The majority (88.4%) reported that they will increase their emphasis on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) for resident selection, and 85% plan to require Step 2 CK scores at application submission time.  Conclusion: Our study suggests most EM PDs disapprove of the new Step 1 scoring. As more objective data is peeled away from the residency application, EM PDs will be left to rely more heavily on the few remaining measures, including Step 2 CK and standardized letters of evaluation. Further changes are needed to promote equity and improve the overall quality of the application process for students and PDs

Survey of Vaccine Hesitancy in Patients Visiting Three Tertiarycare Emergency Departments in Southeast Louisiana

Objectives: Vaccine hesitancy has been a barrier to achieving herd immunity during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Having low socioeconomic status and education levels, and being a person of color, are associated with higher COVID-19 infection risk and worse outcomes. These same groups are associated with higher vaccine hesitancy. The state of Louisiana has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country. In this study we aimed to identify demographic, perspective, and health behavior factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in emergency departments (ED) in Southeast Louisiana.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed at three tertiary-care hospital EDs. Patients >18 years old and not in acute distress were recruited between April–July 2021. The 37-item questionnaire addressed socioeconomic demographics, social determinants of health, COVID-19 safety practices, thoughts and perceptions on COVID-19 and vaccines, sources of COVID-19 and vaccine information, and trust in the healthcare system.Results: Overall, 247 patients completed our survey. Of those, 29.6% reported they were vaccine hesitant. These respondents were significantly more likely, when compared to vaccine-acceptant respondents, to never have married, to have some college education, make less than <$25,000 in household earnings yearly, be unsure whether vaccines prevent disease, not have discussed the COVID-19 vaccine with their primary care doctor, and to prefer to do their own research for COVID-19 vaccine information.Weobserved no statistically significant differences based on gender, race/ethnicity, parental status, area of living, or their perceived risk of needing hospitalization for treatment or dying from the virus.Conclusion: Vaccine hesitancy was associated with multiple socioeconomic factors, perspectives, and beliefs. Vaccine-hesitant individuals were more uncertain about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, the feasibility of obtaining the vaccine, and its efficacy. Public health interventions aimed at these findings and improving public trust in healthcare systems are needed to increase vaccine acceptance

Seamens’ Sign: a novel electrocardiogram prediction tool for left ventricular hypertrophy

Introduction Patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) diagnosed by electrocardiogram (ECG) have increased mortality and higher risk for life-threatening cardiovascular disease. ECGs offer an opportunity to identify patients with increased risk for potential risk-modifying therapy. We developed a novel, quick, easy to use ECG screening criterion (Seamens’ Sign) for LVH. This new criterion was defined as the presence of QRS complexes touching or overlapping in two contiguous precordial leads. Methods This study was a retrospective chart review of 2,184 patient records of patients who had an ECG performed in the emergency department and a transthoracic echocardiogram performed within 90 days. The primary outcome was whether Seamens’ Sign was noninferior in confirming LVH compared to other common diagnostic criteria. Test characteristics were calculated for each of the LVH criteria. Inter-rater agreement was assessed on a random sample using Cohen’s Kappa. Results Median age was 63, 52% of patients were male and there was a 35% prevalence of LVH by transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). Nine percent were positive for LVH on ECG based on Seamens’ Sign. Seamens’ Sign had a specificity of 0.92. Tests assessing noninferiority indicated Seamens’ Sign was non-inferior to all criteria (p < 0.001) except for Cornell criterion for women (p = 0.98). Seamens’ Sign had 90% (0.81–1.00) inter-rater agreement, the highest of all criteria in this study. Conclusion When compared to both the Sokolow-Lyon criteria and the Cornell criterion for men, Seamens’ Sign is noninferior in ruling in LVH on ECG. Additionally, Seamens’ Sign has higher inter-rater agreement compared to both Sokolow-Lyon criteria as well as the Cornell criteria for men and women, perhaps related to its ease of use