ABSTRACT
Objectives: Postresidency career choices are complex decisions that involve personal, professional, and financial preferences and may be influenced by training programs. It is unknown how residents navigate these decisions during emergency medicine (EM) residency. We explored EM residents' perspectives on career decision making and how residency programs can support career planning. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews at seven accredited EM residency programs from diverse locations and training formats. We used purposive sampling to reflect the diversity of trainees with regard to gender, level of training, and career plans. Two researchers independently coded the transcripts. We used a constructivist-interpretivist paradigm to guide our thematic analysis. Results: We interviewed 11 residents and identified major themes in three categories. Residents described being exposed to career options through formalized curricula such as required rotations, career fairs, and subspeciality tracks, highlighting the importance of access to faculty with diverse areas of clinical and academic expertise. Many noted that exposure was often self-driven. We identified three major themes regarding career decisions: instrumental factors, people involved, and processes of decision making. Instrumental factors included personal interests, goals, and values as well as practice characteristics, financial considerations, timing, and opportunity costs. Mentors and family were highly involved in resident career decisions. Residents often utilized reflection and conversations with mentors and peers in their decision-making process. Participants recommended that programs provide exposure to diverse career options early in training, protect time for career education, and ensure adequate mentorship and a supportive community. Participants suggested specific curricular content and strategies to support career decisions. Conclusions: This study illuminates important factors involved in resident career decision making and how programs can support their trainees. Essential components include diverse experiences and building a reflective mentorship environment.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Scholarship is a requirement of residency training; however, the scholarly productivity of trainees is highly variable. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of residents who have been highly productive in scholarship. Methods: We performed a qualitative study using a constructivist-interpretivist paradigm and conducted semistructured interviews at seven Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited emergency medicine residency programs in the United States. We included sites of diverse locations and training formats (PGY-1 to -4 vs. PGY-1 to -3). Program leadership identified residents with high levels of scholarly productivity at their institutions. We used purposive sampling to seek out residents with diversity in gender and PGY level. Two researchers independently performed a thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Discrepancies were resolved through in-depth discussion and negotiated consensus. Results: We invited 14 residents and all consented to be interviewed. Residents felt scholarship enhanced their knowledge and skills, grew collaborative networks, and provided personal fulfillment and external rewards. Scholarship positively impacted their careers by focusing their professional interests and informing career decisions. Participants identified individual and institutional facilitators of success including personal prior knowledge and skills, project management skills, mindset, protected time, mentorship, and leadership support. Challenges to conducting scholarship included lack of time, expertise, and resources. Participants acknowledged that participating in scholarly activities was hard work and recommended that residents seek out quality mentorship, work on projects that they are passionate, start early, and be persistent in their efforts. Participants' advice to faculty supporting resident scholarship included recommendations to allow resident autonomy of projects, provide scholarly opportunities, and be responsive to trainee needs. Conclusions: Participants in this study highlighted benefits of participating in scholarly activity as well as challenges and strategies for success. These results can inform residencies seeking to enhance the scholarly experience of trainees.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The chief resident role often includes additional administrative and educational experiences beyond those of nonchief senior residents. It is unclear to what extent these experiences influence the postresidency career path of those selected as chief residents. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of chief resident status on immediate postresidency career characteristics relative to nonchief residents in emergency medicine (EM). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed graduate data from 2016 to 2020 at six accredited EM residency programs. Participating sites were geographically diverse and included 3- and 4-year training formats. Each site abstracted data using a standardized form including program, year of graduation, chief resident status, publications during residency, and immediate postresidency position (academic vs. nonacademic). We calculated descriptive statistics and performed logistic regression to explore differences between the chief resident cohort and other graduates. RESULTS: We gathered information on 365 total graduates (45.8% from 3-year programs and 54.2% from 4-year programs) including 93 (25.5%) chief residents. A total of 129 (35%) graduates assumed an academic position immediately following residency. Fifty-six (60%) of 93 chief residents assumed an academic position immediately following residency, compared to 74 (27%) of 272 other graduates. After program, year of graduation, and number of publications completed during residency were controlled for, chief resident status was a significant predictor of immediate postresidency academic career (odds ratio for a chief resident assuming an academic job = 5.36, 95% confidence interval = 3.10 to 9.27). CONCLUSION: The chief resident role within EM is significantly associated with pursuit of an academic position immediately following residency compared to nonchiefs.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Medical malpractice litigation is a prevalent challenge for emergency physicians, but there is a dearth of dedicated training in residency programs on this subject. As a result, when emergency physicians become the subject of a medical malpractice action they often find themselves ill-equipped to successfully navigate the process. OBJECTIVES: We sought to create an in-depth medical malpractice simulation encompassing all key aspects of medical practice litigation. We collaborated with a law school for a semester-long simulation of a fabricated medical malpractice case brought against an emergency medicine (EM) resident. DISCUSSION: In harnessing the legal expertise of law students and faculty we were able to deliver a months-long medical malpractice simulation to our EM residency program. Similarly, in lending the medical expertise of our residents and faculty to the project, the law students were afforded a unique practical experience in learning to litigate medical malpractice. CONCLUSIONS: The project resulted in a rich educational experience for both the EM residents and the law students. We present a guide for replication by any residency program in collaboration with a law school.
