Career paths and practice patterns of global emergency medicine physicians: a cross-sectional survey

Clinical duties and compensation for U.S. emergency medicine fellows at academic centers: A descriptive, cross-sectional survey

Objective

Fellowship training is increasingly popular among residency graduates and critical to the advancement of academic emergency medicine (EM). Little is known about the clinical hours worked and financial compensation received by fellows during training. We sought to describe the clinical duties and financial compensation of EM fellows at U.S. academic centers.

Methods

This cross-sectional study surveyed U.S. academic EM department administrators who were members of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine's Academy of Administrators in Academic Emergency Medicine (AAAEM) regarding their fellowship programs and fellows. We electronically distributed the validated survey instrument to 73 member sites between October 2022 and January 2023. Survey domains included fellow and fellowship demographics, base and total annual clinical hours, and base and total annual compensation. We calculated descriptive statistics and compared fellows by accreditation (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] or non-ACGME) using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum testing. We conducted a secondary analysis of base and total salary by gender and accreditation using Wilcoxon rank-sum testing.

Results

We received 38 institutional responses (response rate 52%), which represented 217 individual fellows. Nearly three-fourths (n = 158, 72.8%) of fellows enrolled in non-ACGME fellowships, worked 33% more base hours annually than ACGME fellows (median 571 h vs. 768 h, p < 0.001), and received base compensation 20% higher than ACGME fellows ($88,540 vs. $70,777, p < 0.001). Accounting for additional compensation, the median total annual compensation for non-ACGME fellows remained 11% higher than ACGME fellows ($105,000 vs. $93,853, p = 0.004). We observed no significant differences salary when stratified by gender.

Conclusions

Most EM fellows at U.S. academic institutions enrolled in non-ACGME fellowships with significantly higher base hours and financial compensation than ACGME fellowships. These results represent the first description of the clinical hours and financial compensation of academic EM fellows and should be considered in ongoing benchmarking efforts by AAAEM.

Global health and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine: a cross-sectional survey of members and fellows

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in global health participation among emergency care doctors in the UK. The aim of this paper was to describe the demographics of members and fellows of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine involved in global health, the work they are involved in, as well as the benefits and barriers of this work.

METHODS

We conducted a survey to include members and fellows of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine describing the context of their global health work, funding arrangements for global health work and perceived barriers to, and benefits of, global health work.

RESULTS

The survey collected 1134 responses of which 439 (38.7%) were excluded. The analysis was performed with the remaining 695 (61.3%) responses. Global health involvement concentrated around South Asia and Africa. Work contexts were mainly direct clinical service (267, 38%), curriculum development (203, 29%) and teaching short courses (198, 28%). Activity was largely self-funded, both international (539, 78%) and from UK (516, 74%). Global health work was not reported to contribute to appraisal by many participants (294, 42.3%). Funding (443, 64%) and protected time (431, 62%) were reported as key barriers to global health productivity.

DISCUSSION

Participants largely targeted specialty development and educational activities. Lack of training, funding and supported time were identified as barriers to development. Galvanising support for global health through regional networks and College support for attracting funding and job plan recognition will help UK-based emergency care clinicians contribute more productively to this field.

Emergency Ultrasound: A Survey Study of Fellowship Graduate Characteristics and Career Paths

OBJECTIVES

There are sparse data on the career pathways of graduates of emergency ultrasound fellowships. The authors sought to define the characteristics of graduates and their reported career paths after training through this survey study.

METHODS

A 26-question anonymous survey was emailed to 597 graduates of 70 fellowships over a 4-week period. No incentives were provided for completion of the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics are reported. For qualitative data, open- and axial-coding methods were used.

RESULTS

A total of 336 participants completed the study for a response rate of 56%. The average age of respondents was 36.4 years, and 58% were male. Most graduates had MD degrees (89%) or DO degrees (10%). Sixty percent of graduates attended a 3-year emergency medicine residency, and 29% attended a 4-year residency. Only 11% pursued additional fellowship training, most commonly pediatric emergency medicine (n = 14). After fellowship, 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62.9, 63.1) of graduates began working full-time in an academic setting, whereas 24% (95% CI, 23.9, 24.1) worked full-time in a community setting. Thirty-three percent (95% CI, 32.7, 33.3) took an immediate position as ultrasound division director, whereas 4% (95% CI, 3.7, 4.3) became fellowship directors and 3% (95% CI, 2.7, 3.3) became ultrasound medical student directors. Currently, 67% (95% CI, 66-68%) identify ultrasound as their leading academic focus.

CONCLUSIONS

Although not all fellowship graduates pursue academic positions, most note the impact of fellowship on their career paths. Graduates hold a variety of leadership positions. Approximately two thirds still consider ultrasound as their academic focus.

The American College of Academic International Medicine 2017 Consensus Statement on International Medical Programs: Establishing a system of objective valuation and quantitative metrics to facilitate the recognition and incorporation of academic international medical efforts into existing promotion and tenure paradigms

The growth of academic international medicine (AIM) as a distinct field of expertise resulted in increasing participation by individual and institutional actors from both high-income and low-and-middle-income countries. This trend resulted in the gradual evolution of international medical programs (IMPs). With the growing number of students, residents, and educators who gravitate toward nontraditional forms of academic contribution, the need arose for a system of formalized metrics and quantitative assessment of AIM- and IMP-related efforts. Within this emerging paradigm, an institution's “return on investment” from faculty involvement in AIM and participation in IMPs can be measured by establishing equivalency between international work and various established academic activities that lead to greater institutional visibility and reputational impact. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide a basic framework for quantitative assessment and standardized metrics of professional effort attributable to active faculty engagement in AIM and participation in IMPs. Implicit to the current work is the understanding that the proposed system should be flexible and adaptable to the dynamically evolving landscape of AIM – an increasingly important subset of general academic medical activities.