Caretta‐Weyer, Holly

ABSTRACT Objectives To evaluate how academic emergency departments (EDs) support procedural skill maintenance for faculty physicians, particularly in environments where learners often perform procedures. We aimed to characterize training strategies, barriers to participation, and the inclusion of high‐acuity, low‐occurrence (HALO) procedures. Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional survey of department chairs, vice chairs, and chair emeriti attending the 2025 Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) retreat. The survey assessed institutional approaches to procedural training, frequency of offerings, training modalities, inclusion of HALO procedures, and perceived barriers. Descriptive statistics and chi‐square tests were used to analyze differences in training frequency and procedural coverage. Results Of 81 academic departments represented, 49 responded (60.5%). Most (87.8%) offered procedural training, yet only 32.6% required participation. Hands‐on training was most common (93%), followed by in‐person (79%) and virtual (16%) sessions. While 100% of departments covered point‐of‐care ultrasound and 93% airway management, fewer addressed HALO procedures: only 27.9% covered all HALO categories (e.g., surgical airway, thoracostomy, pericardiocentesis). Time constraints and clinical schedules were the most‐commonly reported barriers to participation. Conclusions Procedural skill maintenance for EM attendings varies widely across academic EDs. Despite the specialty's procedural intensity, most academic departments lack comprehensive, mandatory training, particularly for infrequent but critical procedures. Findings highlight variability in departmental approaches and the need to further explore best practices for procedural skill maintenance.

Abstract Background Precision medicine, sometimes referred to as personalized medicine, is rapidly changing the possibilities for how people will engage health care in the near future. As technology to support precision medicine exponentially develops, there is an urgent need to proactively improve our understanding of precision medicine and pose important research questions (RQs) related to its inclusion in the education and training of future emergency physicians. Methods A seven‐step process was employed to develop a research agenda exploring the intersection of precision and emergency medicine education/training. A literature search of articles about precision medicine was conducted first, which informed the creation of future four scenarios in which trainees and practicing physicians regularly discuss and incorporate precision medicine tools into their discussions and work. Based on these futurist narratives, potential education RQs were generated by an expert panel. A total of 59 initial questions were subsequently categorized and refined to a priority list through a nominal group voting method. The top/priority questions were presented at the 2023 SAEM Consensus Conference on Precision Medicine, Austin, Texas, for further input. Results Eight high‐value education RQs were developed, reflecting a holistic view of the challenges and opportunities for precision medicine education in the knowledge, skills, and attitudes relevant to emergency medicine. These questions contend with topics such as most effective pedagogical methods; intended resulting outcomes and behaviors; the generational differences between practicing emergency physicians, educators, and future trainees; and the desires and expectations of patients. Conclusions Emergency medicine and emergency physicians must be prepared to understand precision medicine and incorporate this information into their “toolbox” of thinking, problem solving, and communication with patients and colleagues. This research agenda on how best to educate future emergency physicians in the use of personalized data to provide optimal health care is the focus of this article.