Optimizing global health experiences in emergency medicine residency programs: A consensus statement from the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors 2011 Academic Assembly global health specialty track

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of emergency medicine (EM) residency training programs have residents interested in participating in clinical rotations in other countries. However, the policies that each individual training program applies to this process are different. To our knowledge, little has been done in the standardization of these experiences to help EM residency programs with the evaluation, administration and implementation of a successful global health clinical elective experience. The objective of this project was to assess the current status of EM global health electives at residency training programs and to establish recommendations from educators in EM on the best methodology to implement successful global health electives. METHODS: During the 2011 Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) Academic Assembly, participants met to address this issue in a mediated discussion session and working group. Session participants examined data previously obtained via the CORD online listserve, discussed best practices in global health applications, evaluations and partnerships, and explored possible solutions to some of the challenges. In addition a survey was sent to CORD members prior to the 2011 Academic Assembly to evaluate the resources and processes for EM residents’ global experiences. RESULTS: Recommendations included creating a global health working group within the organization, optimizing a clearinghouse of elective opportunities for residents and standardizing elective application materials, site evaluations and resident assessment/feedback methods. The survey showed that 71.4% of respondents have global health partnerships and electives. However, only 36.7% of programs require pre-departure training, and only 20% have formal competency requirements for these global health electives. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of EM training programs have global health experiences available, but these electives and the trainees may benefit from additional institutional support and formalized structure

A model for emergency medicine education in post-conflict Liberia

AbstractThe specialty of emergency medicine (EM) remains largely underdeveloped in many parts of the world including Africa. Within West Africa the Liberian health care system was presented with incredible challenges in the immediate post conflict years. One significant challenge facing the country was the paucity of health care providers. In 2006, only 122 physicians were practising in Liberia (one for every 26,782 citizens), only 87 of them Liberian national physicians. The public health indicators in post conflict Liberia suffered as a result of the overburdened system. Many indicators placed Liberia as having the worst health survivability in the world. Significantly, morbidity and mortality associated with unaddressed emergent presentations remained high.This article describes a unique paradigm for addressing the deficit in human capacity for emergency health care in the Republic of Liberia. This system was designed and supported by a consortium of academic medical centres in the United States working in conjunction with a local non-governmental organisation, Health Education and Relief Through Teaching (HEARTT). Since 2007, the consortium has delivered virtually uninterrupted emergency medical care and medical education at the largest teaching hospital in Liberia. The Liberian programme objectives included supervising and directing emergency medical care, providing a model for curriculum development, building capacity for medical education, and improving systems-based EM practice. The collaboration of multiple academic institutions in bringing emergency medical services and academic EM teaching to a post-conflict setting remains a unique model for introducing the development of acute care in a developing country

The Practitioner\u27s Guide to Global Health: an interactive, online, open-access curriculum preparing medical learners for global health experiences

BACKGROUND: Short-term experiences in global health (STEGH) are increasingly common in medical education, as they can provide learners with opportunities for service, learning, and sharing perspectives. Academic institutions need high-quality preparatory curricula and mentorship to prepare learners for potential challenges in ethics, cultural sensitivity, and personal safety; however, availability and quality of these are variable. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to create and evaluate an open-access, interactive massive open online course (MOOC) that prepares learners to safely and effectively participate in STEGH, permits flexible and asynchronous learning, is free of charge, and provides a certificate upon successful completion. METHODS: Global health experts from 8 countries, 42 institutions, and 7 specialties collaborated to create The Practitioner\u27s Guide to Global Health (PGGH): the first course of this kind on the edX platform. Demographic data, pre- and posttests, and course evaluations were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Within its first year, PGGH enrolled 5935 learners from 163 countries. In a limited sample of 109 learners, mean posttest scores were significantly improved (p \u3c 0.01). In the course\u27s second year, 213 sampled learners had significant improvement (p \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSION: We created and evaluated the first interactive, asynchronous, free-of-charge global health preparation MOOC. The course has had significant interest from US-based and international learners, and posttest scores have shown significant improvement

Towards developing a consensus assessment framework for global emergency medicine fellowships

Abstract Background The number of Global Emergency Medicine (GEM) Fellowship training programs are increasing worldwide. Despite the increasing number of GEM fellowships, there is not an agreed upon approach for assessment of GEM trainees. Main body In order to study the lack of standardized assessment in GEM fellowship training, a working group was established between the International EM Fellowship Consortium (IEMFC) and the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM). A needs assessment survey of IEMFC members and a review were undertaken to identify assessment tools currently in use by GEM fellowship programs; what relevant frameworks exist; and common elements used by programs with a wide diversity of emphases. A consensus framework was developed through iterative working group discussions. Thirty-two of 40 GEM fellowships responded (80% response). There is variability in the use and format of formal assessment between programs. Thirty programs reported training GEM fellows in the last 3 years (94%). Eighteen (56%) reported only informal assessments of trainees. Twenty-seven (84%) reported regular meetings for assessment of trainees. Eleven (34%) reported use of a structured assessment of any sort for GEM fellows and, of these, only 2 (18%) used validated instruments modified from general EM residency assessment tools. Only 3 (27%) programs reported incorporation of formal written feedback from partners in other countries. Using these results along with a review of the available assessment tools in GEM the working group developed a set of principles to guide GEM fellowship assessments along with a sample assessment for use by GEM fellowship programs seeking to create their own customized assessments. Conclusion There are currently no widely used assessment frameworks for GEM fellowship training. The working group made recommendations for developing standardized assessments aligned with competencies defined by the programs, that characterize goals and objectives of training, and document progress of trainees towards achieving those goals. Frameworks used should include perspectives of multiple stakeholders including partners in other countries where trainees conduct field work. Future work may evaluate the usability, validity and reliability of assessment frameworks in GEM fellowship training

Identifying inaccuracies on emergency medicine residency applications

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have showed a 10–30% rate of inaccuracies on applications to individual residency programs. No studies have attempted to corroborate this on a national level. Attempts by residency programs to diminish the frequency of inaccuracies on applications have not been reported. We seek to clarify the national incidence of inaccuracies on applications to emergency medicine residency programs. METHODS: This is a multi-center, single-blinded, randomized, cohort study of all applicants from LCME accredited schools to involved EM residency programs. Applications were randomly selected to investigate claims of AOA election, advanced degrees and publications. Errors were reported to applicants' deans and the NRMP. RESULTS: Nine residencies reviewed 493 applications (28.6% of all applicants who applied to any EM program). 56 applications (11.4%, 95%CI 8.6–14.2%) contained at least one error. Excluding "benign" errors, 9.8% (95% CI 7.2–12.4%), contained at least one error. 41% (95% CI 35.0–47.0%) of all publications contained an error. All AOA membership claims were verified, but 13.7% (95%CI 4.4–23.1%) of claimed advanced degrees were inaccurate. Inter-rater reliability of evaluations was good. Investigators were reluctant to notify applicants' dean's offices and the NRMP. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to date of accuracy on application for residency and the first such multi-centered trial. High rates of incorrect data were found on applications. This data will serve as a baseline for future years of the project, with emphasis on reporting inaccuracies and warning applicants of the project's goals

How do professions globalize? Lessons from the Global South in US medical education

This article explores the professional construction of the space of Global Health. I argue that the growth of Global Health as a field of practice does not merely indicate an intensification of North-South intervention. It is also a professional project of reimporting lessons from the South to countries in the North. I focus on the emerging didactic regime for Global Health in US medical education and the deterritorialized "global" lessons that students are taught in poor countries. By rescaling these lessons to precarious settings at home, the space of Global Health is reterritorialized as a Global Medical South stretching into the United States, reinforcing the perception that health is not a right but a privilege. The analysis is based on a content analysis of university websites and didactic handbooks and a sample of sixty-four articles evaluating the education effects of study abroad experiences. It reveals an emerging canon of Global Health virtues and the construction of domestic scales for Global Health practices, which are based on ethnic and socioeconomic categories. This analysis of professional projects as spatial projects sheds new light on the geography of Global Health and of professional globalization more generally