How Well Do Core Faculty Understand The Emergency Medicine Milestones?

Introduction: It is unclear how emergency medicine (EM) programs educate core faculty about the use of milestones in competency-based evaluations. We conducted a national survey to profile how programs educate core faculty regarding their use and to assess core faculty’s understanding of the milestones.Methods: Our survey tool was distributed over six months in 2017 via the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) listserv. Responses, which were de-identified, were solicited from program directors (PDs), assistant/associate program directors (APDs), and core faculty. A single response from a program was considered sufficient.Results: Our survey had a 69.7% response rate (n=140/201). 62.9% of programs reported educating core faculty about the EM Milestones via the distribution of physical or electronic media. Although 82.6% of respondents indicated that it was important for core faculty to understand how the EM Milestones are used in competency-based evaluations, respondents estimated that 48.6% of core faculty possess “fair or poor” understanding of the milestones. Furthermore, only 50.7% of respondents felt that the EM Milestones were a valuable tool.Conclusion: These data suggest there is sub-optimal understanding of the EM Milestones among core faculty and disagreement as to whether the milestones are a valuable tool

How Well Do Core Faculty Understand The Emergency Medicine Milestones?

Introduction: It is unclear how emergency medicine (EM) programs educate core faculty about the use of milestones in competency-based evaluations. We conducted a national survey to profile how programs educate core faculty regarding their use and to assess core faculty’s understanding of the milestones.Methods: Our survey tool was distributed over six months in 2017 via the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) listserv. Responses, which were de-identified, were solicited from program directors (PDs), assistant/associate program directors (APDs), and core faculty. A single response from a program was considered sufficient.Results: Our survey had a 69.7% response rate (n=140/201). 62.9% of programs reported educating core faculty about the EM Milestones via the distribution of physical or electronic media. Although 82.6% of respondents indicated that it was important for core faculty to understand how the EM Milestones are used in competency-based evaluations, respondents estimated that 48.6% of core faculty possess “fair or poor” understanding of the milestones. Furthermore, only 50.7% of respondents felt that the EM Milestones were a valuable tool.Conclusion: These data suggest there is sub-optimal understanding of the EM Milestones among core faculty and disagreement as to whether the milestones are a valuable tool

The perceived work environment and well-being: A survey of emergency health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care provider well-being was affected by various challenges in the work environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the perceived work environment and mental well-being of a sample of emergency physicians (EPs), emergency medicine (EM) nurses, and emergency medical services (EMS) providers during the pandemic. METHODS: We surveyed attending EPs, resident EPs, EM nurses, and EMS providers from 10 academic sites across the United States. We used latent class analysis (LCA) to estimate the effect of the perceived work environment on screening positive for depression/anxiety and burnout controlling for respondent characteristics. We tested possible predictors in the multivariate regression models and included the predictors that were significant in the final model. RESULTS: Our final sample included 701 emergency health care workers. Almost 23% of respondents screened positive for depression/anxiety and 39.7% for burnout. Nurses were significantly more likely to screen positive for depression/anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-3.86) and burnout (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.22-3.49) compared to attendings. The LCA analysis identified four subgroups of our respondents that differed in their responses to the work environment questions. These groups were identified as Work Environment Risk Group 1, an overall good work environment; Risk Group 2, inadequate resources; Risk Group 3, lack of perceived organizational support; and Risk Group 4, an overall poor work environment. Participants in the two groups who perceived their work conditions as most adverse were significantly more likely to screen positive for depression/anxiety (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.05-3.42; and aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.14-3.66) compared to participants working in environments perceived as less adverse. CONCLUSIONS: We found a strong association between a perceived adverse working environment and poor mental health, particularly when organizational support was deemed inadequate. Targeted strategies to promote better perceptions of the workplace are needed

In Their Own Words: Experiences of Emergency Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial number of emergency HCWs have screened positive for anxiety, depression, risk of post-traumatic stress disorder and burnout. The purpose of this qualitative study is to describe the impact of COVID-19 on emergency care providers\u27 health and well-being using personal perspectives. We conducted in-depth interviews with emergency medicine (EM) physicians, EM nurses and emergency medical service providers at ten collaborating sites across the United States between September 21, 2020, and October 26, 2020. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework that described the relationship between the work environment and employee health. We used qualitative content analysis to evaluate our interview transcripts classified the domains, themes and subthemes that emerged from the transcribed interviews. RESULTS: We interviewed 32 emergency HCWs. They described difficult working conditions, such as constrained physical space, inadequate personnel protective equipment and care protocols that kept changing. Organizational leadership was largely viewed as unprepared, distant, and unsupportive of employees. Providers expressed high moral distress caused by ethically challenging situations, such as the perception of not being able to provide the normal standard of care and emotional support to patients and their families at all times, being responsible for too many sick patients, relying on inexperienced staff to treat infected patients, and caring for patients that put their own health and the health of their families at risk. Moral distress was commonly experienced by emergency HCWs, exacerbated by an unsupportive organizational environment. CONCLUSION: Future preparedness efforts should include mechanisms to support frontline health care workers when faced with ethical challenges in addition to an adverse working environment caused by a pandemic such as COVID-19