IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Nidhi Garg, Vicken Y Totten, Marna Rayl Greenberg, Gentry Wilkerson, John T Finnell, Wayne Bond Lau, James R Miner, James P d'Etienne, Jason D Brenner, Pridha Kumar, Carlos A Camargo
{"title":"An Expert Consensus of Acceptable Scholarly Activities in Emergency Medicine Residency Training Programs.","authors":"Nidhi Garg, Vicken Y Totten, Marna Rayl Greenberg, Gentry Wilkerson, John T Finnell, Wayne Bond Lau, James R Miner, James P d'Etienne, Jason D Brenner, Pridha Kumar, Carlos A Camargo","doi":"10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.10.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Scholarly activity (SA) has been interpreted inconsistently between allopathic and osteopathic emergency medicine programs, but the acceptable methods to achieve this requirement must be re-evaluated, particularly in the light of the merger of allopathic and osteopathic programs to form the Single Accreditation System. This paper describes the results of inquiry from a series of meetings of the Research, Scholarly Activity, and Innovation section of the American College of Emergency Physicians.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to describe differences between allopathic and osteopathic emergency medicine programs and their SA requirements. The authors set out to scrutinize different forms of SA on the basis of the venerated models of Boyer and Glassick.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a systematic qualitative review of the SA models in academic literature using the criteria of Boyer and Glassick. The authors then compared the allopathic and osteopathic emergency medicine SA requirements and made recommendations about how to evaluate proposed SAs and rated various forms of SA on the basis of the Boyer and Glassick models.</p><p><strong>Evidence review: </strong>Allopathic programs have required \"scholarly activity,\" which includes many types of activities, while osteopathic programs have traditionally required \"research.\" Traditionally, allopathic programs have provided more structural support and faculty involvement in resident SA than have osteopathic programs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Objective criteria, such as those of Boyer and Glassick, should be used to determine if a given activity is truly scholarly. A residency which determines that a proposed activity meets these objective criteria is less likely to be cited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and more likely to fulfill the SA requirements. The authors propose the Individual Scholarly Activity Plan as a method to set agreed-upon goals and track resident and faculty progress towards completion and facilitate career advancement among both residents and faculty.</p>","PeriodicalId":16085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.10.002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:全科和骨科急诊医学项目对学术活动(SA)的解释不一致,但必须重新评估实现这一要求的可接受方法,特别是在全科和骨科项目合并形成单一评审系统的情况下。本文介绍了美国急诊医师学会研究、学术活动和创新部门一系列会议的调查结果:本研究旨在描述全科和骨科急诊医学项目之间的差异及其 SA 要求。作者以 Boyer 和 Glassick 的著名模型为基础,对不同形式的 SA 进行了仔细研究:作者根据 Boyer 和 Glassick 的标准对学术文献中的 SA 模式进行了系统的定性审查。然后,作者比较了对抗疗法和骨科急诊医学的SA要求,就如何评估拟议的SA提出了建议,并根据Boyer和Glassick模型对各种形式的SA进行了评级:对抗疗法项目要求 "学术活动",其中包括多种类型的活动,而骨科项目传统上要求 "研究"。传统上,与整骨疗法项目相比,对抗疗法项目在住院医师培训方面提供了更多的结构性支持和教师参与:结论:应采用客观标准(如 Boyer 和 Glassick 的标准)来确定某项活动是否真正具有学术性。如果一个住院医师培训项目认为所提议的活动符合这些客观标准,那么它就不太可能被毕业后医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)引用,也更有可能达到住院医师培训的要求。作者建议将 "个人学术活动计划 "作为一种方法,用于设定一致同意的目标,并跟踪住院医师和教职员工的完成进度,促进住院医师和教职员工的职业发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Expert Consensus of Acceptable Scholarly Activities in Emergency Medicine Residency Training Programs.

Background: Scholarly activity (SA) has been interpreted inconsistently between allopathic and osteopathic emergency medicine programs, but the acceptable methods to achieve this requirement must be re-evaluated, particularly in the light of the merger of allopathic and osteopathic programs to form the Single Accreditation System. This paper describes the results of inquiry from a series of meetings of the Research, Scholarly Activity, and Innovation section of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Objective: This study aimed to describe differences between allopathic and osteopathic emergency medicine programs and their SA requirements. The authors set out to scrutinize different forms of SA on the basis of the venerated models of Boyer and Glassick.

Methods: The authors conducted a systematic qualitative review of the SA models in academic literature using the criteria of Boyer and Glassick. The authors then compared the allopathic and osteopathic emergency medicine SA requirements and made recommendations about how to evaluate proposed SAs and rated various forms of SA on the basis of the Boyer and Glassick models.

Evidence review: Allopathic programs have required "scholarly activity," which includes many types of activities, while osteopathic programs have traditionally required "research." Traditionally, allopathic programs have provided more structural support and faculty involvement in resident SA than have osteopathic programs.

Conclusion: Objective criteria, such as those of Boyer and Glassick, should be used to determine if a given activity is truly scholarly. A residency which determines that a proposed activity meets these objective criteria is less likely to be cited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and more likely to fulfill the SA requirements. The authors propose the Individual Scholarly Activity Plan as a method to set agreed-upon goals and track resident and faculty progress towards completion and facilitate career advancement among both residents and faculty.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Emergency Medicine
Journal of Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
339
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Emergency Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to both the academic and practicing emergency physician. JEM, published monthly, contains research papers and clinical studies as well as articles focusing on the training of emergency physicians and on the practice of emergency medicine. The Journal features the following sections: • Original Contributions • Clinical Communications: Pediatric, Adult, OB/GYN • Selected Topics: Toxicology, Prehospital Care, The Difficult Airway, Aeromedical Emergencies, Disaster Medicine, Cardiology Commentary, Emergency Radiology, Critical Care, Sports Medicine, Wound Care • Techniques and Procedures • Technical Tips • Clinical Laboratory in Emergency Medicine • Pharmacology in Emergency Medicine • Case Presentations of the Harvard Emergency Medicine Residency • Visual Diagnosis in Emergency Medicine • Medical Classics • Emergency Forum • Editorial(s) • Letters to the Editor • Education • Administration of Emergency Medicine • International Emergency Medicine • Computers in Emergency Medicine • Violence: Recognition, Management, and Prevention • Ethics • Humanities and Medicine • American Academy of Emergency Medicine • AAEM Medical Student Forum • Book and Other Media Reviews • Calendar of Events • Abstracts • Trauma Reports • Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信