Walker, Laura

AbstractCOVID‐19 has impacted all health care professionals in every aspect of life. Female academic emergency physicians have been uniquely affected and continue to face challenges related to clinical workloads, work–life integration, academic productivity, leadership and visibility within departments, and mental health. This white paper, prepared on behalf of the Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), describes the differential impact of COVID‐19 on female academic emergency physicians explored during a virtual panel discussion at the 2020 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting. AWAEM convened a virtual panel of women to begin a discussion to share experiences and challenges and formulate consensus guidelines regarding best practices and mitigation strategies. The authors describe the unique ways in which female academic physicians have been affected, identify ongoing and intensified gender gaps, and delineate strategies to address the identified problems. Specific recommendations include individual, as well as, institutional and systems‐level approaches to combat the inequities.

Background: Palliative care has been identified as an area of low outpatient referral from our emergency department, yet palliative care has been shown to improve the quality of patient’s lives. Aim: This study investigates both provider and patient perspectives on palliative care for the purpose of identifying barriers to increased palliative care utilization within our healthcare system. Design: Two surveys were developed, one for patients/caregivers and one for healthcare providers. Setting/participants: This was a single-center study completed at a quaternary academic emergency department. A survey was sent to emergency medicine providers with 47% response rate. Research staff approached Emergency Department patients who had been identified to be high risk to fill out paper surveys with 76% response rate. Results: Only 28% of patients had already undergone palliative care, with an additional 25% interested in palliative care. Nearly half of the patients felt that they needed more resources to prevent hospital visits. Patients identified low understanding of palliative care and difficulty accessing appointments as barriers to consultation. Among providers, 98% indicated that they had patients who would benefit from palliative care. A majority of providers highlighted patient understanding of palliative care and access to appointments as barriers to palliative care. Notably, 52% of providers reported that emergency medicine provider knowledge was a barrier to palliative care consultation. Conclusions: Despite emergency department patients’ self-identified need for resources and emergency medicine providers’ recognition of patients who would benefit from palliative care, few patients receive palliative care consultation.

The Joint Commission requires ongoing and focused provider performance evaluations (OPPEs/FPPEs). The authors aim to describe current approaches in emergency medicine (EM) and identify consensus-based best practice recommendations. An online survey was distributed to leaders in EM to gain insight into current practices. A modified Delphi approach was then used to develop consensus to recommend best practice. A variety of strategies are currently in use for OPPE/FPPE. “Peer reviewed cases with opportunity for improvement” was identified as a preferred metric for OPPE. Although the preference was for use of peer review in OPPE, a consistent and standard adoption of robust internal care review processes is needed to establish expected norms. National benchmarking is not available currently. This was a limited survey of self-identified leaders, and there is an opportunity for additional engagement of leaders in EM to identify a unified approach that appropriately relates to patient outcomes.

Background: Patient satisfaction surveys are vital to measuring a patient’s experience of care. How scores of patients managed by emergency medicine (EM) residents change as residents progress through training is not known. Objectives: To evaluate whether EM residents’ patient satisfaction scores improve as residency training progresses, similar to clinical skill improvement. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated the correlation of patient satisfaction scores with EM resident year of training from 2015 through 2017. We evaluated for a change in score over time for the 4 “physician questions” and the “overall” score. Results: We evaluated 1684 Press Ganey surveys linked to 40 EM resident physicians during the study period. The mean top box scores for the 4 physician questions (concern for comfort [ P = .72], courtesy [ P = .55], informative about treatment [ P = .46], and listening [ P = .91]) and overall assessment of emergency department care ( P = .51) were not significantly improved over the course of resident. Conclusion: We did not observe a difference in EM residents’ patient experience scores as their level of training progressed. Comprehensive patient experience training for residents might be needed.