Comparison of Direct Staffing Costs of Advanced Practice Providers and Residents in a High Acuity Area of a Community Emergency Department

Background: Resident physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) both have roles in providing care within emergency departments (ED). While both bring unique skill sets and capabilities to the health care team, little is known about the comparative financial impact of APPs and residents in a community ED. The objective of this study was to compare direct staffing costs per relative value unit (RVU) generated of emergency medicine (EM) residents and APPs in a community ED setting. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational analysis of RVU productivity of resident physicians and APPs in the high acuity area of a community ED. Billing data was acquired to determine RVUs generated by both APPs and residents when supervised by an attending physician. Direct costs and hours worked were used to calculate RVUs/hour and direct costs/hour. Direct cost/RVU generated were calculated for the four specific groups of providers (PGY1, PGY2, PGY3, and APP). Results: During the study period, APPs generated 2.88 RVUs/hour. Residents generated 2.01, 3.00, and 3.49 RVUs/hour respectively from PGY1 to PGY3. When the RVU data was combined with scheduled hours and direct costs for both groups, APPs were found to cost $22.46 per RVU generated. The average cost of a resident throughout three years of residency training is approximately$12.38 per RVU generated. Conclusion: In a high acuity area of a community ED, EM residents generate more RVUs/hour than APPs after completion of their PGY1 year. Given the lower direct hourly cost of a resident compared with an APP, the direct cost of a resident to assist an attending to generate RVUs is less than that of their APP counterparts during all three years of training. This suggests that community hospitals should consider sponsoring EM residency positions over hiring APPs for use in the high acuity setting

Does the Medical Student Performance Evaluation Change the Decision to Invite Residency Applicants?

Introduction: Although emergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PD) have multiple sources to evaluate each applicant, some programs await the release of the medical student performance evaluation (MSPE) to extend interview offers. While prior studies have demonstrated that MSPE content is variable and selectively positive, no prior work has evaluated the impact of the MSPE on the likelihood to invite (LTI) applicants for a residency interview. This study aimed to evaluate how information in the MSPE impacted LTI, with the hypothesis that changes in LTI would be relatively rare based on MSPE review alone.  Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational study analyzing applications to three EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 match cycle. Reviewers assessed applications and rated the LTI on a five-point Likert scale where LTI was defined as follows: 1 = definitely no; 2 = probably no; 3 = unsure; 4 = probably yes; and 5 = definitely yes. The LTI was recorded before and after MSPE review. A change in LTI was considered meaningful when it changed the overall trajectory of the applicant’s likelihood to receive an invitation to interview.  Results: We reviewed a total of 877 applications with the LTI changing ≥1 point on the Likert scale 160 (18.2%) times. The LTI was meaningfully impacted in a minority of applications – 48 total            (5.5 %, p< 0.01) – with only 1 (0.11%) application changing from 1 or 2 (definitely/probably no) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) and 34 (3.8%) changing from 3 (unsure) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes). Thirteen (1.5%) applications changed from 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) to 3 (unsure or probably/definitely no). Conclusion: Review of the MSPE resulted in a meaningful change in LTI in only 5.5% of applications. Given the time required for program leadership to review all parts of the variably formatted MSPEs, this finding supports a more efficient application review, where the PD’s focus is on succinct and objective aspects of the application, such as the Standardized Letter of Evaluation

Does the Medical Student Performance Evaluation Change the Decision to Invite Residency Applicants?

Introduction: Although emergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PD) have multiple sources to evaluate each applicant, some programs await the release of the medical student performance evaluation (MSPE) to extend interview offers. While prior studies have demonstrated that MSPE content is variable and selectively positive, no prior work has evaluated the impact of the MSPE on the likelihood to invite (LTI) applicants for a residency interview. This study aimed to evaluate how information in the MSPE impacted LTI, with the hypothesis that changes in LTI would be relatively rare based on MSPE review alone.  Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational study analyzing applications to three EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 match cycle. Reviewers assessed applications and rated the LTI on a five-point Likert scale where LTI was defined as follows: 1 = definitely no; 2 = probably no; 3 = unsure; 4 = probably yes; and 5 = definitely yes. The LTI was recorded before and after MSPE review. A change in LTI was considered meaningful when it changed the overall trajectory of the applicant’s likelihood to receive an invitation to interview.  Results: We reviewed a total of 877 applications with the LTI changing ≥1 point on the Likert scale 160 (18.2%) times. The LTI was meaningfully impacted in a minority of applications – 48 total            (5.5 %, p< 0.01) – with only 1 (0.11%) application changing from 1 or 2 (definitely/probably no) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) and 34 (3.8%) changing from 3 (unsure) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes). Thirteen (1.5%) applications changed from 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) to 3 (unsure or probably/definitely no). Conclusion: Review of the MSPE resulted in a meaningful change in LTI in only 5.5% of applications. Given the time required for program leadership to review all parts of the variably formatted MSPEs, this finding supports a more efficient application review, where the PD’s focus is on succinct and objective aspects of the application, such as the Standardized Letter of Evaluation