Research Pioneers in Emergency Medicine-Reflections on Their Paths to Success and Advice to Aspiring Researchers: A Qualitative Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Research in basic, translational, and clinical emergency medicine has made great strides since the formalization of emergency medicine as a specialty. Our objective is to identify and analyze strategies used by emergency medicine research pioneers to inform further advancement of research in emergency medicine, particularly for aspiring researchers and those in emerging areas, using emergency medicine medical education as one example. METHODS: This was a prospective, grounded-theory, qualitative study, using a constructivist/interpretivist paradigm. Leading basic science, translational, and clinical emergency medicine researchers who completed residency before 1995 were eligible for structured interviews. Thematic coding followed an iterative process until saturation was reached. A theoretic model was developed and analyzed. RESULTS: Research pioneers valued advanced methodological training and mentorship. Barriers to funding were lack of recognition of emergency medicine as a specialty, absence of a research history, and lack of training and funding resources. Deliberate interventions to improve emergency medicine research included educational sessions at national meetings, external (to emergency medicine) mentor pairings, targeted funding by emergency medicine organizations, and involvement with funding agencies. Pioneers facilitate research excellence by serving as mentors and allocating funds or protected time to develop researchers. To advance emerging subfields of research in emergency medicine, pioneers recommend advanced methodological training that is specific to the area, deliberate mentorship, and the formation of research consortia to conduct generalizable outcomes-based studies. CONCLUSION: Research pioneers in emergency medicine cite mentorship, advanced skills obtained through fellowship or graduate degrees, deliberate collaboration with experienced researchers, support from emergency medicine organizations, and forming networks as the cornerstones of success.

Exploring Scholarship and the Emergency Medicine Educator: A Workforce Study.

INTRODUCTION: Recent literature calls for initiatives to improve the quality of education studies and support faculty in approaching educational problems in a scholarly manner. Understanding the emergency medicine (EM) educator workforce is a crucial precursor to developing policies to support educators and promote education scholarship in EM. This study aims to illuminate the current workforce model for the academic EM educator. METHODS: Program leadership at EM training programs completed an online survey consisting of multiple choice, completion, and free-response type items. We calculated and reported descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 112 programs participated. Mean number of core faculty/program: 16.02 ± 7.83 [14.53-17.5]. Mean number of faculty full-time equivalents (FTEs)/program dedicated to education is 6.92 ± 4.92 [5.87-7.98], including (mean FTE): Vice chair for education (0.25); director of medical education (0.13); education fellowship director (0.2); residency program director (0.83); associate residency director (0.94); assistant residency director (1.1); medical student clerkship director (0.8); assistant/associate clerkship director (0.28); simulation fellowship director (0.11); simulation director (0.42); director of faculty development (0.13). Mean number of FTEs/program for education administrative support is 2.34 ± 1.1 [2.13-2.61]. Determination of clinical hours varied; 38.75% of programs had personnel with education research expertise. CONCLUSION: Education faculty represent about 43% of the core faculty workforce. Many programs do not have the full spectrum of education leadership roles and educational faculty divide their time among multiple important academic roles. Clinical requirements vary. Many departments lack personnel with expertise in education research. This information may inform interventions to promote education scholarship.

Reducing women's cardiovascular disease risk profile.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in women. Unique risk factors have been recognized, including pre-eclampsia, eclampsia and autoimmune diseases. Diabetes and hypertension (HTN) also play a unique role in women. Women with diabetes have a higher risk for coronary heart disease and microvascular disease compared with males. Additionally, older women have a high prevalence of uncontrolled HTN and women tend to have more treatment resistant HTN, increasing risk for cardiovascular events and mortality. The outcomes of cardiovascular disease have shown an increase in the number of heart attacks in younger women, though there is decreasing mortality. Treatment with coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous intervention has also shown to have poorer outcomes in women.