Introduction: Emergency medicine (EM) residents take the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) In-Training Examination (ITE) every year. This examination is based on the ABEM Model of Clinical Practice (Model). The purpose of this study was to determine whether a relationship exists between the number of patient encounters a resident sees within a specific clinical domain and their ITE performance on questions that are related to that domain.

Methods: Chief complaint data for each patient encounter was taken from the electronic health record for EM residents graduating in three consecutive years between 2016-2021. We excluded patient encounters without an assigned resident or a listed chief complaint. Chief complaints were then categorized into one of 20 domains based on the 2016 Model. We calculated correlations between the total number of encounters seen by a resident for all clinical years and their ITE performance for the corresponding clinical domain from their third year of training. 

Results: Available for analysis were a total of 232,625 patient encounters and 69 eligible residents who treated the patients. We found no statistically significant correlations following Bonferroni correction for multiple analyses.

Conclusion: There was no correlation between the number of patient encounters a resident has within a clinical domain and their ITE performance on questions corresponding to that domain. This suggests the need for separate but parallel educational missions to achieve success in both the clinical environment and standardized testing.

Introduction: While many aspects of emergency medicine (EM) residency training are standardized among residents within a single residency program, there is no standard for the distribution of chief complaints (CC) that residents should see over the course of residency. This could result in substantial variability in each resident’s clinical exposure. Our objective in this study was to explore EM residents’ clinical exposure to CCs to determine whether substantial variation exists. If such variation exists, this could suggest the need for curricular reform to address gaps in resident clinical exposure during training.

Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of EM residents who graduated in the years 2016–2021 at a single, university-affiliated emergency department (ED) in the midwestern United States. All patient encounters where a CC was logged were included and categorized into 1 of 20 clinical domains based on the 2016 American Board of Emergency Medicine Model of Clinical Practice. We calculated descriptive statistics for the top 10 most encountered domains for comparison among residents.

Results: We included a total of 228,916 patient encounters from 69 residents in the analysis. Residents were involved in an average of 3,323 distinct patient encounters during the study period. The overall interquartile range for patient encounters was 523. The three CC domains with the broadest interquartile variation were abdominal and gastrointestinal disorders (116), musculoskeletal disorders (nontraumatic)(93), and traumatic disorders (86).

Conclusion: Within a single, three-year academic EM program, substantial variation existed among residents with regard to the variety of patient CCs seen during their residency training. 

Introduction: Resident achievement data is a powerful but underutilized means of program evaluation, allowing programs to empirically measure whether they are meeting their program aims, facilitate refinement of curricula and improve resident recruitment efforts. The goal was to provide an overview of available metrics of resident achievement and how these metrics can be used to inform program aims.

Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar between May and November of 2020. Publications were eligible for inclusion if they discussed or assessed “excellence” or “success” during residency training. A narrative review structure was chosen due to the intention to provide an examination of the literature on available resident achievement metrics. 

Results: 57 publications met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Metrics of excellence were grouped into larger categories, including success defined by program factors, academics, national competencies, employer factors, and possible new metrics.

Conclusions: Programs can best evaluate whether they are meeting their program aims by creating a list of important resident-level metrics based on their stated goals and values using one or more of the published definitions as a foundation. Each program must define which metrics align best with their individual program aims and mission.