Weighing the gold standard: The breadth of emergency medicine core content covered by textbooks.

Background: Textbooks are often considered the criterion standard in medical education, but there is a growing preference for free open-access medical education (FOAM) content among learners. Despite FOAM's appeal, these resources often fall short in covering core content as comprehensively as the American Board of Emergency Medicine's 2019 Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine (MCPEM), thereby sustaining the recommendation for textbook use. However, textbooks have limitations, such as how quickly content can become outdated. Notably, there is no evaluation of the comprehensiveness of emergency medicine (EM) textbooks in the literature. Methods: This observational cross-sectional study compared Rosen's Emergency Medicine: Concepts and Clinical Practice 10th Edition (Rosen's) and Tintinalli's Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide 9th Edition (Tintinalli's) with the MCPEM subtopics. Each textbook chapter was reviewed for content alignment with MCPEM subtopics. The primary outcome was the proportion of MCPEM subtopics covered by each textbook. Secondary outcomes included the count of chapters covering each topic and their distribution relative to the core content weighting in the ABEM National Qualifying Examination (NQE). Results: Rosen's covered 95.3% of MCPEM subtopics (837 unique subtopics), and Tintinalli's covered 94.5% (826 unique subtopics). Both textbooks overrepresented topics like toxicology and psychobehavioral disorders compared to their weighting in the NQE. Relatively underrepresented topics included environmental disorders, cardiovascular disorders, renal and urogenital disorders, and traumatic disorders in Rosen's and other core competencies and cardiovascular disorders in Tintinalli's. The textbooks varied significantly in coverage of certain topics. Conclusions: Both Rosen's and Tintinalli's comprehensively cover MCPEM subtopics, with some discrepancies in topic representation compared to the NQE. While textbooks offer depth and breadth, they may not fully align with the NQE content distribution. A diversified approach to EM education, combining traditional textbooks and FOAM resources may be required for comprehensive learning.

How do emergency medicine applicants evaluate residency programs in the post-COVID-19 era?

Objectives: Pandemic disruptions to interviews and away rotations led applicants to rely on alternative sources of information about residency programs. We sought to compare program characteristics important to emergency medicine (EM)-bound applicants from before and after the pandemic. We also investigated the sources of information pandemic impacted applicants used during residency recruitment. Methods: This was a multi-institutional, cross-sectional survey of applicants to EM residency programs. We asked applicants about important factors in choosing a program and compared their response to results from 2019 National Residency Match Program. We also asked about alternative information sources used during this time of restricted access to programs of interest. Results: We surveyed 414 applicants from 40 medical schools and attained a response rate of 38.4%. Compared to 2019 applicants, our respondents identified morale of residents and quality of faculty as important factors in choosing a residency. Our subjects cited websites of the program and hospital affiliate, current residents, faculty/mentor advice, Reddit, and Doximity as sources of program information. Conclusions: Compared to 2019, our EM-bound applicants who, because of the pandemic, were unable to visit programs of interest valued resident morale and faculty quality as factors in choosing a residency program. Without in-person visits, our subjects also had to use both virtual resources (e.g., websites) and traditional sources (e.g., mentor advice) to investigate a program's culture, reputation, and diversity and inclusion. Residency programs should monitor their online presence now that this has become an alternative source of information for applicants during curtailment of in-person visits.

Drastic Decontamination in a Patient With Anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic reactions are common symptoms in the emergency department (ED), with anaphylaxis comprising 1-3% of ED visits. Anaphylaxis is a clinical diagnosis. Treatment of anaphylaxis starts with airway, oxygenation, and decontamination, followed by medication administration. CASE REPORT: We describe a patient who presented to the ED with anaphylaxis complicated by a persistent exposure to the allergen with need for emergent decontamination. Why Should an Emergency Physician be Aware of This? Knowing the treatment of anaphylaxis is critical to prevent morbidity and mortality. This case is a reminder to always remove the offending agent and nuances involved with treating critically ill pregnant patients.