| Title |
A national needs assessment of emergency medicine resident-as-teacher curricula
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Internal and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11739-016-1420-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James Ahn, David Jones, Lalena Michelle Yarris, Helen Barrett Fromme |
| Abstract |
Both the Liaison Committee on Medical Education and the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education require residents to be engaged in teaching to develop skills as educators. Although proposed guidelines for an emergency medicine (EM) resident-as-teachers (RAT) curriculum were published in 2006, little has been published regarding RAT curriculum implementation or outcomes since. A crucial first step in developing a formal RAT curriculum for EM educators to pilot, implement, and evaluate is an assessment of current needs and practices related to RAT curricula in EM residencies. The aim of this study was to conduct a needs assessment of EM residency programs regarding RAT curricular resources and practices. We invited all EM residency programs to participate in a web-based survey assessing their current RAT curricula and needs. 28 % responded to our needs assessment. Amongst responding programs, 60 % had a RAT curriculum. Of programs with a required medical student rotation, 59 % had a RAT curriculum. Of programs without a RAT program, 14 % had a program in development, and 18 % had a teaching resident program without a curriculum. Most RAT programs (72 %) were lecture-based and the majority (66 %) evaluated using survey data. 84 % of respondent programs demonstrated a desire for a national RAT curriculum. We find that despite national mandates, a large portion of programs do not have a RAT curriculum in place. There is wide variation in core content and curriculum evaluation techniques among available curricula. A majority of respondents report interest in a standardized web-based curriculum as one potential solution to this problem. Our results may help inform collaborative efforts to develop a national EM RAT curriculum. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 49% |
| Engineering | 5 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,449,393
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#696
of 942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,974
of 300,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#24
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.