ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:We compare educational environments (i.e. physical, emotional and intel ectual experiences) of emergency medicine (EM) residents training in the United States of America (USA) and Saudi Arabia (SA). METHODS:A cross-sectional survey study was conducted using an adapted version of the validated Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM) survey instrument from April 2015 through June 2016 to compare educational environments in all emergency medicine residency programs in SA and three selected programs in the USA with a history of training Saudi physicians. Overall scores were compared across programs, and for subscales (autonomy, teaching, and social Support), using chi-squared, t-tests, and analysis of variance. RESULTS:A total of 219 surveys were returned for 260 residents across six programs (3 SA, 3 USA), with a response rate of 84％. Program-specific response rates varied from 79％–100％. All six residencies were qualitatively rated as "more positive than negative but room for improvement". Quantitative PHEEM scores for the USA programs were significantly higher:118.7 compared to 109.9 for SA, P=0.001. In subscales, perceptions of social support were not different between the two countries (P=0.243); however, role autonomy (P<0.001) and teaching (P=0.005) were better in USA programs. There were no significant differences by post-graduate training year. CONCLUSION:EM residents in all three emergency medicine residency programs in SA and the three USA programs studied perceive their training as high quality in general, but with room for improvements. USA residency programs scored higher in overall quality. This was driven by more favorable perceptions of role autonomy and teaching. Understanding how residents perceive their programs may help drive targeted quality improvement efforts.
ABSTRACT
@#BACKGROUND: Costs of care are increasingly important in healthcare policy and, more recently, in clinical care in the emergency department (ED). We compare ED resident and patient perspectives surrounding costs in emergency care. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study using surveys and qualitative interviews at a single, academic ED in the United States. The two study populations were a convenience sample of adult ED patients (>17 years of age) and ED residents training at the same institution. Participants answered open- and closed-ended questions on costs, medical decision making, cost-related compliance, and communication about costs. Closed-ended data were tabulated and described using standard statistics while open-ended responses were analyzed using grounded theory. RESULTS: Thirty ED patients and 24 ED residents participated in the study. Both patients and residents generally did not have knowledge of medical costs. Patients were comfortable discussing costs while residents were less comfortable. Residents agreed that doctors should consider costs when making medical decisions whereas patients somewhat disagreed. Additionally, residents generally took costs into consideration during clinical decision-making, yet nearly all residents agreed that they had too little education on costs. CONCLUSION: There were several notable differences in ED patient and resident perspectives on costs in this U.S. sample. While patients somewhat disagree that cost should factor into decision making, generally they are comfortable discussing costs yet report having insufficient knowledge of what care costs. Conversely, ED residents view costs as important and agree that cost should factor into decision making but lack education on what emergency care costs.