ACEP is committed to ensuring those conversations happen and to the development and adoption of a multi-organization policy specific to stopping the expansion of new programs.
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 40 – No 05 – May 2021- Raise the bar to ensure consistency across emergency medicine residency training
The original number of required procedures for EM residencies was set decades ago. Some research exists, but more is needed to assess validity of the existing standard and what role simulation should play in competency. Based on such objective research, all emergency medicine organizations can work with the Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine to set appropriate requirements around such criteria as the number of procedures required on actual patients (versus simulation) and number of direct patient contact interactions (including primary responsibilities in such conditions as trauma, resuscitation, airway, pediatric critical care/trauma, etc.).
Emergency department volume requirements should impact competition for patient procedures and EM residents should have priority for critical care encounters and procedures. These deliberations, and any subsequent changes they lead toward, should help to strengthen the value of the residency-trained, board-certified emergency physician leading the ED team.
Further, the expected presence of core faculty should be required at the primary sites and minimum qualifications should be delineated, as should faculty academic and scholarly requirements. These requirements must ensure the best educational environment to prepare emergency physicians to provide the quality of care our patients deserve, both now and in the evolving future.
There should be consideration of transitioning to a consistent four-year EM residency training model while maintaining the same total complement of residents. More research is needed to determine if there is evidence that this potential move would addresses additional educational needs while also resulting in a decrease in graduates each year.
ACEP is just one stakeholder in this realm, but we are committed to working with key organizations closely to examine and to update the standards and qualifications of new and existing residency programs—while also protecting the residents and medical students who are counting on them.
- Ensure business interests are not superseding the needs of educating the workforce
There are a lot of voices who assert that the root cause of our workforce issue can be traced back to “pop-up” residencies funded by large, equity-backed management groups and the corporate practice of medicine. ACEP is committed to working with key stakeholders to closely examine the legality and ethics of organizations funding residency training programs. No business interests, whether from a not-for-profit organization or a for-profit organization, should supersede the service needs of educating a workforce, while also caring for our communities.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page
3 Responses to “Workforce Considerations: ACEP’s Commitment to You and Emergency Medicine”
April 21, 2021
Johnny the EM guySo if I understand this correctly you want to restrict the pipeline (residency) of future EM physicians, restrict independent practice by mid-level providers, while simultaneously admitting there aren’t enough EM physicians in rural communities.
I am curious as to how you reconcile these obviously opposing goals?
You cannot force EM physicians into rural practices or hospitals. Nor can you force private corporate hospital system to pay rural EM physicians more in order to lure them there.
April 24, 2021
Eric sI don’t think that stopping the proliferation of emergency residencies is enough. All existing residencies will have to cut down on spots (perhaps 20-25%) because it is unreasonable to close some down. There are too many EM docs. The corporate jobs are already lowering pay because they can because there is a surplus. The only way to protect us and allowing us to work is to cut the surplus.
April 25, 2021
Robert McNamara, MDThis is an excellent document with great suggestions. To extend some of the themes above let me plead that the ACEP also endorse two items very closely aligned with the views stated here:
1) Ensure business interests are not superseding the needs of our patients.
2) Declare it unacceptable to have the contract for emergency services held by a lay for profit corporation. (this of course gives them the power to make staffing decisions)
Each of these goals can be obtained by advocating for enforcement of existing prohibitions on the corporate practice of medicine and by seeking such regulations where they do not exist or restoring those that have been weakened. It is for our patients after all.