Gender-based Barriers to the Advancement of Women in Academic Emergency Medicine: A Multi-Institutional Survey Study.

INTRODUCTION: Leadership positions occupied by women within academic emergency medicine have remained stagnant despite increasing numbers of women with faculty appointments. We distributed a multi-institutional survey to women faculty and residents to evaluate categorical characteristics contributing to success and differences between the two groups. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved electronic survey was distributed to women faculty and residents at eight institutions and were completed anonymously. We created survey questions to assess multiple categories: determination; resiliency; career support and obstacles; career aspiration; and gender discrimination. Most questions used a Likert five-point scale. Responses for each question and category were averaged and deemed significant if the average was greater than or equal to 4 in the affirmative, or less than or equal to 2 in the negative. We calculated proportions for binary questions. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 55.23% (95/172). The faculty response rate was 54.1% (59/109) and residents' response rate was 57.1% (36/63). Significant levels of resiliency were reported, with a mean score of 4.02. Childbearing and rearing were not significant barriers overall but were more commonly reported as barriers for faculty over residents (P <0.001). Obstacles reported included a lack of confidence during work-related negotiations and insufficient research experience. Notably, 68.4% (65/95) of respondents experienced gender discrimination and 9.5% (9/95) reported at least one encounter of sexual assault by a colleague or supervisor during their career. CONCLUSION: Targeted interventions to promote female leadership in academic emergency medicine include coaching on negotiation skills, improved resources and mentorship to support research, and enforcement of safe work environments. Female emergency physician resiliency is high and not a barrier to career advancement.

Atrial fibrillation: an approach to diagnosis and management in the emergency department.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common dysrhythmia encountered in the emergency department. In patients aged >65 years, the incidence approaches 10%, and the number of patients with atrial fibrillation is expected to almost double in the next 30 years. Atrial fibrillation and its associated comorbidities also carry significant healthcare cost. Electrocardiogram findings may be subtle at times, but prompt diagnosis is needed to maximize good outcomes, especially when patients are cardiovascularly compromised. This review includes evidence-based recommendations on rate versus rhythm control, discusses pharmacologic versus electrical cardioversion, evaluates thromboembolic risk, and provides options for anticoagulation.

Can Emergency Medicine Residents Predict Cost of Diagnostic Testing?

INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic testing represents a significant portion of healthcare spending, and cost should be considered when ordering such tests. Needless and excessive spending may occur without an appreciation of the impact on the larger healthcare system. Knowledge regarding the cost of diagnostic testing among emergency medicine (EM) residents has not previously been studied. METHODS: A survey was administered to 20 EM residents from a single ACGME-accredited three-year EM residency program, asking for an estimation of patient charges for 20 commonly ordered laboratory tests and seven radiological exams. We compared responses between residency classes to evaluate whether there was a difference based on level of training. RESULTS: The survey completion rate was 100% (20/20 residents). We noted significant discrepancies between the median resident estimates and actual charge to patient for both laboratory and radiological exams. Nearly all responses were an underestimate of the actual cost. The group median underestimation for laboratory testing was $114, for radiographs $57, and for computed tomography exams was $1,058. There was improvement in accuracy with increasing level of training. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates that EM residents have a poor understanding of the charges burdening patients and health insurance providers. In order to make balanced decisions with regard to diagnostic testing, providers must appreciate these factors. Education regarding the cost of providing emergency care is a potential area for improvement of EM residency curricula, and warrants further attention and investigation.

Residency Applicant Preferences of Online Systems for Scheduling Interviews.

BACKGROUND: Residency applicants often have difficulty coordinating interviews with multiple programs. An online scheduling system might improve this process. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine applicant mean time to schedule interviews and satisfaction using online scheduling compared with manual scheduling. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to US graduates applying to any of 6 emergency medicine programs in the 2014-2015 application cycle. Of the participant programs, 3 used an online system and 3 did not. Applicants were asked to report estimated time to schedule with the online system compared to their average time using other methods, and to rate their satisfaction with the scheduling process. RESULTS: Of 1720 applicants to at least 1 of the 6 programs, 856 completed the survey (49.8%). Respondents reported spending less time scheduling interviews using the online system compared to other systems (median of 5 minutes [IQR 3-10] versus 60 minutes [IQR 15-240], respectively, P < .0001). In addition, applicants preferred using the online system (93.6% versus 1.4%, P < .0001.) Applicants were also more satisfied with the ease of scheduling their interviews using the online system (91.5% versus 11.0%, P < .0001) and felt that the online system aided them in coordinating travel arrangements (74.7% versus 41.5%, P < .01.). CONCLUSIONS: An online interview scheduling system is associated with time savings for applicants as well as higher satisfaction among applicants, both in ease of scheduling and in coordinating travel arrangements. The results likely are generalizable to other medical and surgical specialties.

Handoff Practices in Emergency Medicine: Are We Making Progress?

OBJECTIVES: Transitions of care present a risk for communication error and may adversely affect patient care. This study addresses the scope of current handoff practices amongst U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residents. In addition, it evaluates current educational and evaluation practices related to handoffs. Given the ever-increasing emphasis on transitions of care in medicine, we sought to determine if interval changes in resident transition of care education, assessment, and proficiency have occurred. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study guided by the Kern model for medical curriculum development. The Council of Residency Directors Listserv provided access to 175 programs. The survey focused on elucidating current practices of handoffs from emergency physicians (EPs) to EPs, including handoff location and duration, use of any assistive tools, and handoff documentation in the emergency department (ED) patient's medical record. Multiple-choice questions were the primary vehicle for the response process. A four-point Likert-type scale was used in questions regarding perceived satisfaction and competency. Respondents were not required to answer all questions. Responses were compared to results from a similar 2011 study for interval changes. RESULTS: A total of 127 of 175 programs responded to the survey, making the overall response rate 72.6%. Over half of respondents (72 of 125, 57.6%) indicated that their ED uses a standardized handoff protocol, which is a significant increase from 43.2% in 2011 (p = 0.018). Of the programs that do have a standardized system, a majority (72 of 113, 63.7%) of resident physicians use it regularly. Significant increases were noted in the number of programs offering formal training during orientation (73.2% from 59.2%; p = 0.015), decreases in the number of programs offering no training (2.4% from 10.2%; p = 0.013), and no assessment of proficiency (51.5% from 69.8%; p = 0.006). No significant interval changes were noted in handoffs being documented in the patient's medical record (57.4%), the percentage of computer/electronic signouts, or the level of dissatisfaction with handoff tools (54.1%). Less than two-thirds of respondents (80 of 126, 63.5%) indicated that their residents were "competent" or "extremely competent" in delivering and receiving handoffs. CONCLUSIONS: An insufficient level of handoff training is currently mandated or available for EM residents, and their handoff skills appear to be developed mostly informally throughout residency training with varying results. Programs that have created a standardized protocol are not ensuring that the protocol is actually being employed in the clinical arena. Handoff proficiency most often goes unevaluated, although it is improved from 2011.

Hypoglycemia after accidental pediatric sulfonylurea ingestions.

BACKGROUND: Because the prevalence of type 2 diabetes increases annually, there has been an increase in pediatric exposures to sulfonylureas. These medications are associated with delayed and often prolonged hypoglycemia. As such, most authorities but not all recommend admission for all pediatric patients with an accidental sulfonylurea ingestion. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review of all pediatric patients with sulfonylurea exposures admitted for 9 years at an urban, pediatric teaching hospital. The incidence and characteristics of the hypoglycemia were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: During this time span, 93 patients with accidental sulfonylurea exposures were admitted, with a median age of 1.83 years. Glyburide and glipizide accounted for most sulfonylureas. Hypoglycemia (blood glucose level <50 mg/dL) developed in 25 (58.1%) of 43 patients who ingested glipizide, compared with 10 (25.6%) of 39 patients who ingested glyburide. The overall incidence of hypoglycemia was 44%. Hypoglycemia was more likely to occur with glipizide ingestion than glyburide (odds ratio, 3.89 [95% confidence interval, 1.51-9.98]). No patient with a known time of ingestion developed hypoglycemia after 13 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoglycemia is common after accidental sulfonylurea exposures. The results of this study support mandatory admission to a monitored setting for at least 16 hours, with frequent glucose determinations.