Does the Emergency Medicine In‐training Examination Accurately Reflect Residents' Clinical Experiences?. Issue 4 (19th September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bischof, Jason J.; Emerson, Geremiha; Mitzman, Jennifer; Khandelwal, Sorabh; Way, David P.; Southerland, Lauren T.
• Editors: Wolff, Margaret
• Is Part Of: AEM education and training. Volume 3:Issue 4(2019)
• Page Start: 317
• Page End: 322
• Publication Date: 2019-09-19
• Subjects: Emergency medicine -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Emergency medicine -- Study and teaching -- United States -- Periodicals; Periodicals; 616.025
• DOI: 10.1002/aet2.10381
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2472-5390

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The American Board of Emergency Medicine Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine (ABEM Model) serves as a guide for resident education and the basis for the resident In‐training Examination (ITE) and the Emergency Medicine Board Qualification Examinations. The purpose of this study was to determine how closely resident–patient encounters in our emergency departments (EDs) matched the ABEM Model as presented in the specifications of the content outline for the ITE. Methods: This single‐site study of an academic residency program analyzed all documented resident–patient encounters in the ED during a 2.5‐year period recorded in the electronic medical record. The chief complaints from these encounters were matched to the 20 categories of the ABEM Model. Chi‐square goodness‐of‐fit tests were performed to compare the proportions of categorized encounters and proportions of patient acuity levels to the proportions of categories as outlined in the content blueprint of the ITE. Results: After the exclusion of encounters with missing data and those not involving EM residents, 125, 405 encounters were analyzed. We found a significant difference between the clinical experience of EM residents and the ABEM Model as reflected in the ITE for both case categories (p < 0.01) and patient acuity (p < 0.01). The following categories were the most overrepresented in clinical care: signs, symptoms, and presentations; psychobehavioral disorders; and abdominal and gastrointestinal disorders. The most underrepresented were procedures and skills, systemic infectious disorders, and thoracic–respiratory disorders. Conclusion: The clinical experience of EM residents differs significantly from the ITE Content Blueprint, which reflects the ABEM Model. This type of inquiry may help to provide custom education reports to residents about their clinical encounters to help identify clinical knowledge gaps that may require supplemental nonclinical training.