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

A comparison of the effect of patient-specific versus weight-based protocols to treat vaso-occlusive episodes in the emergency department

BACKGROUND: Vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) cause debilitating pain and are a common cause of emergency department (ED) visits, for people with sickle cell disease (SCD). Strategies for achieving optimal pain control vary widely despite evidence-based guidelines. We tested existing guidelines and hypothesized that a patient-specific pain protocol (PSP) written by their SCD provider may be more effective than weight-based (WB) dosing of parenteral opiate medication, in relieving pain. METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing a PSP versus WB protocol for patients presenting with VOCs to six EDs. Patients were randomized to a PSP or WB protocol prior to an ED visit. The SCD provider wrote their protocol and placed it in the electronic health record for future ED visits with VOC exclusion criteria that included preexisting PSP excluding parenteral opioid analgesia or outpatient use of buprenorphine or methadone or highly suspected for COVID-19. Pain intensity scores, side effects, and safety were obtained every 30 min for up to 6 h post-ED bed placement. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity score from placement in an ED space to disposition or 6 h. RESULTS: A total of 328 subjects were randomized; 104 participants enrolled (ED visit, target n = 230) with complete data for 96 visits. The study was unable to reach the target sample size and stopped early due to the impact of COVID-19. We found no significant differences between groups in the primary outcome; patients randomized to a PSP had a shorter ED length of stay (p = 0.008), and the prevalence of side effects was low in both groups. Subjects in both groups experienced both a clinically meaningful and a statistically significant decrease in pain (27 mm on a 0- to 100-mm scale). CONCLUSIONS: We found a shorter ED length of stay for patients assigned to a PSP. Patients in both groups experienced good pain relief without significant side effects