RESUMO
Objective: Fellowship training is increasingly popular among residency graduates and critical to the advancement of academic emergency medicine (EM). Little is known about the clinical hours worked and financial compensation received by fellows during training. We sought to describe the clinical duties and financial compensation of EM fellows at U.S. academic centers. Methods: This cross-sectional study surveyed U.S. academic EM department administrators who were members of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine's Academy of Administrators in Academic Emergency Medicine (AAAEM) regarding their fellowship programs and fellows. We electronically distributed the validated survey instrument to 73 member sites between October 2022 and January 2023. Survey domains included fellow and fellowship demographics, base and total annual clinical hours, and base and total annual compensation. We calculated descriptive statistics and compared fellows by accreditation (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] or non-ACGME) using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum testing. We conducted a secondary analysis of base and total salary by gender and accreditation using Wilcoxon rank-sum testing. Results: We received 38 institutional responses (response rate 52%), which represented 217 individual fellows. Nearly three-fourths (n = 158, 72.8%) of fellows enrolled in non-ACGME fellowships, worked 33% more base hours annually than ACGME fellows (median 571 h vs. 768 h, p < 0.001), and received base compensation 20% higher than ACGME fellows ($88,540 vs. $70,777, p < 0.001). Accounting for additional compensation, the median total annual compensation for non-ACGME fellows remained 11% higher than ACGME fellows ($105,000 vs. $93,853, p = 0.004). We observed no significant differences salary when stratified by gender. Conclusions: Most EM fellows at U.S. academic institutions enrolled in non-ACGME fellowships with significantly higher base hours and financial compensation than ACGME fellowships. These results represent the first description of the clinical hours and financial compensation of academic EM fellows and should be considered in ongoing benchmarking efforts by AAAEM.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Sepsis is a life-threatening disease in children and is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Early prehospital recognition and management of children with sepsis may have significant effects on the timely resuscitation of this high-risk clinical condition. However, the care of acutely ill and injured children in the prehospital setting can be challenging. This study aims to understand barriers, facilitators, and attitudes regarding recognition and management of pediatric sepsis in the prehospital setting. METHODS: This was a qualitative study of EMS professionals participating in focus groups using a grounded theory-based design to gather information on recognition and management of septic children in the prehospital setting. Focus groups were held for EMS administrators and medical directors. Separate focus groups were held for field clinicians. Focus groups were conducted via video conference until saturation of ideas was reached. Using consensus methodology, transcripts were coded in an iterative process. Data were then organized into positive and negative factors based on the validated PRECEDE-PROCEED model for behavioral change. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants in six focus groups identified nine environmental factors, 21 negative factors, and 14 positive factors pertaining to recognition and management of pediatric sepsis. These findings were organized into the PRECEDE-PROCEED planning model. Pediatric sepsis guidelines were identified as positive factors when they did exist and negative factors when they were complicated or did not exist. Six interventions were identified by participants. These include raising awareness of pediatric sepsis, increasing pediatric education, receiving feedback on prehospital encounters, increasing pediatric exposure and skills training, and improving dispatch information. CONCLUSION: This study fills a gap by examining barriers and facilitators to prehospital diagnosis and management of pediatric sepsis. Using the PRECEDE-PROCEED model, nine environmental factors, 21 negative factors, and 14 positive factors were identified. Participants identified six interventions that could create the foundation to improve prehospital pediatric sepsis care. Policy changes were suggested by the research team based on the results of this study. These interventions and policy changes provide a roadmap for improving care in this population and lay the groundwork for future research.
