Introduction: In the 2023 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) match, there were 554 unfilled emergency medicine (EM) positions before the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP). We sought to describe features of EM programs that participated in the match and the association between select program characteristics and unfilled positions.

Methods: The primary outcome measures included the proportion of positions filled in relation to state and population density, hospital ownership type, and physician employment model. Secondary outcome measures included comparing program-specific attributes between filled and unfilled programs, including original accreditation type, year of original accreditation, the total number of approved training positions, length of training, urban-rural designation, hospital size by number of beds, resident-to-bed ratio, and the percentage of disproportionate share patients seen.

Results: The NRMP Match had 276 unique participating EM programs with 554 unfilled positions. Six states offered 52% of the total NRMP positions available. Five states were associated with two-thirds of the unfilled positions. Public hospitals had a statistically significant higher match rate (88%) when compared to non-profit and for-profit hospitals, which had match rates of 80% and 75%, respectively (P < 0.001). Programs with faculty employed by a health system had the highest match rate of 87%, followed by clinician partnerships at 79% and private equity groups at 68% (P < 0.001 overall and between all subgroups).

Conclusion: The 2023 match in EM saw increased rates in the number of residency positions and programs that did not fill before the SOAP. Public hospitals had higher match rates than for-profit or non-profit hospitals. Residency programs that employed academic faculty through the hospital or health system were associated with higher match rates.

Introduction: The goal of this study was to characterize current practices in the transition of care between the emergency department and primary care setting, with an emphasis on the use of the electronic medical record (EMR). 

Methods: Using literature review and modified Delphi technique, we created and tested a pilot survey to evaluate for face and content validity. The final survey was then administered face-to-face at eight different clinical sites across the country. A total of 52 emergency physicians (EP) and 49 primary care physicians (PCP) were surveyed and analyzed. We performed quantitative analysis using chi-square test. Two independent coders performed a qualitative analysis, classifying answers by pre-defined themes (inter-rater reliability > 80%). Participants’ answers could cross several pre-defined themes within a given question. 

Results: EPs were more likely to prefer telephone communication compared with PCPs (30/52 [57.7%] vs. 3/49 [6.1%] P < 0.0001), whereas PCPs were more likely to prefer using the EMR for discharge communication compared with EPs (33/49 [67.4%] vs. 13/52 [25%] p < 0.0001). EPs were more likely to report not needing to communicate with a PCP when a patient had a benign condition (23/52 [44.2%] vs. 2/49 [4.1%] p < 0.0001), but were more likely to communicate if the patient required urgent follow-up prior to discharge from the ED (33/52 [63.5%] vs. 20/49 [40.8%] p = 0.029). When discussing barriers to effective communication, 51/98 (52%) stated communication logistics, followed by 49/98 (50%) who reported setting/environmental constraints and 32/98 (32%) who stated EMR access was a significant barrier.

Conclusion: Significant differences exist between EPs and PCPs in the transition of care process. EPs preferred telephone contact synchronous to the encounter whereas PCPs preferred using the EMR asynchronous to the encounter. Providers believe EP-to-PCP contact is important for improving patient care, but report varied expectations and multiple barriers to effective communication. This study highlights the need to optimize technology for an effective transition of care from the ED to the outpatient setting.