National needs assessment of emergency medicine faculty regarding scholarly activity practices and support

IF 1.6 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE

Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open Pub Date : 2024-09-25 DOI:10.1002/emp2.13292

Nidhi Garg MD, Jennifer Johnson BA, Sumedha Garg PhD, Bernard Chang MD, PhD, Christopher Zabbo DO, Pridha Kumar BS, Lance Becker MD, Phillip Levy MD, MPH, Gabor D. Kelen MD, Joshua J. Davis MD, Manish Shah MD

{"title":"National needs assessment of emergency medicine faculty regarding scholarly activity practices and support","authors":"Nidhi Garg MD, Jennifer Johnson BA, Sumedha Garg PhD, Bernard Chang MD, PhD, Christopher Zabbo DO, Pridha Kumar BS, Lance Becker MD, Phillip Levy MD, MPH, Gabor D. Kelen MD, Joshua J. Davis MD, Manish Shah MD","doi":"10.1002/emp2.13292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We aimed to assess the attitudes and perceptions of scholarly activity (SA) practices among emergency medicine (EM) physicians who are engaged in training residents. This study examined the belief and need for modern-day SA, potential barriers, and department resources provided.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey study of EM physicians across the United States identified from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American College of Osteopathic Physicians directories. The survey consisted of 18 items regarding demographics, attitude toward SA, department support, and questions regarding residency programs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 660 survey recipients completed the survey out of a possible pool of 4296 individuals (15% response rate), of which 530 (80%) indicated they were core faculty. Of core faculty, 428 (80.8%) were part of an allopathic program, whereas 102 (19.2%) were part of an osteopathic program. Department support was provided for protected time (385; 58.3%), research staff (346; 52.4%), Institutional Review Board preparation (240; 36.4%), and biostatistics (314; 47.6%). Of all the institutional roles, the largest percentage (82/125, 65.6%) of chair/vice chair/associate chairs strongly agreed or agreed (score of 5 or 4 of 5) with the statement, “Overall, I am satisfied with the scholarly support provided by my department.” There was no difference in agreement with this statement between respondents in an allopathic versus osteopathic program (210/428, 49.1% allopathic; 45/102, 44.1% osteopathic).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>There is a need for increased departmental support for SA. To optimally implement the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) SA requirements into strategy and action, the ACGME should consider providing EM residency programs with an outline of best SA practices to foster a uniform consensus across academic institutions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":73967,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/emp2.13292","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/emp2.13292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

We aimed to assess the attitudes and perceptions of scholarly activity (SA) practices among emergency medicine (EM) physicians who are engaged in training residents. This study examined the belief and need for modern-day SA, potential barriers, and department resources provided.

Methods

We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey study of EM physicians across the United States identified from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American College of Osteopathic Physicians directories. The survey consisted of 18 items regarding demographics, attitude toward SA, department support, and questions regarding residency programs.

Results

A total of 660 survey recipients completed the survey out of a possible pool of 4296 individuals (15% response rate), of which 530 (80%) indicated they were core faculty. Of core faculty, 428 (80.8%) were part of an allopathic program, whereas 102 (19.2%) were part of an osteopathic program. Department support was provided for protected time (385; 58.3%), research staff (346; 52.4%), Institutional Review Board preparation (240; 36.4%), and biostatistics (314; 47.6%). Of all the institutional roles, the largest percentage (82/125, 65.6%) of chair/vice chair/associate chairs strongly agreed or agreed (score of 5 or 4 of 5) with the statement, “Overall, I am satisfied with the scholarly support provided by my department.” There was no difference in agreement with this statement between respondents in an allopathic versus osteopathic program (210/428, 49.1% allopathic; 45/102, 44.1% osteopathic).

Conclusion

There is a need for increased departmental support for SA. To optimally implement the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) SA requirements into strategy and action, the ACGME should consider providing EM residency programs with an outline of best SA practices to foster a uniform consensus across academic institutions.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

全国急诊医学教员学术活动实践和支持需求评估

目的我们旨在评估从事住院医师培训的急诊医学（EM）医师对学术活动（SA）实践的态度和看法。本研究考察了现代学术活动的信念和需求、潜在障碍以及所提供的部门资源。方法我们对从美国急诊医师学会和美国骨科医师学会目录中找到的全美急诊医师进行了一项描述性横断面调查研究。调查包括 18 个项目，涉及人口统计学、对 SA 的态度、部门支持以及有关住院医师培训计划的问题。结果在可能的 4296 人中，共有 660 名调查对象完成了调查（回复率为 15%），其中 530 人（80%）表示自己是核心教师。在核心教师中，428 人（80.8%）属于全科医学专业，102 人（19.2%）属于骨科医学专业。系里提供的支持包括保护时间（385；58.3%）、研究人员（346；52.4%）、机构审查委员会准备（240；36.4%）和生物统计（314；47.6%）。在所有机构角色中，对 "总体而言，我对我所在部门提供的学术支持感到满意 "这一说法表示非常同意或同意（5 分或 5 分中的 4 分）的主席/副主席/副主席比例最高（82/125，65.6%）。全科医学专业与骨科医学专业的受访者对这句话的同意程度没有差异（210/428，49.1% 为全科医学专业；45/102，44.1% 为骨科医学专业）。结论需要增加对 SA 的部门支持。为了将毕业后医学教育认证委员会（ACGME）的SA要求最佳地落实到战略和行动中，ACGME应考虑为急诊科住院医师培训项目提供最佳SA实践大纲，以促进各学术机构达成统一共识。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open

CiteScore

4.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

5 weeks