Jameyfield Emily L, Kropf Charles W, Lewis Jason J, Reisig Christopher, Thomas Jenna
University of Chicago Chicago Illinois USA.
Present address: Yale University School of Medicine New Haven Connecticut USA.
AEM Educ Train. 2024 Dec 26;8(6):e11056. doi: 10.1002/aet2.11056. eCollection 2024 Dec.
Following the widespread shift from in-person to virtual delivery of didactics during the COVID-19 pandemic, some emergency medicine (EM) residency programs have retained virtual didactic time while others have returned exclusively to in-person didactics. In this national survey of EM residency programs, we explored the current national distribution of virtual versus in-person didactic time and the circumstances and motivators for use of each.
A cross-sectional survey with branched logic was designed via Qualtrics. Distribution was via a Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (CORD) listserv; nonresponding programs were emailed directly with subsequent reminders. Analysis and descriptive statistics were calculated via Microsoft Excel. All authors performed thematic analysis of narrative comments.
We received responses from 174 of 281 programs (61.9%). "Hybrid" programs utilizing both in-person and virtual time represented 51.7% of respondents, and the remaining 49.3% used in-person didactics only. Among hybrid programs, 77.3% utilized in-person conferences greater than 75% of the time. Simulation (100%) and procedural teaching (99%) were most strongly preferred in person, and oral boards practice (30.2%) was supported virtually. The most common motivations for in-person delivery were perceived impact on resident and/or faculty learning (86.8%), perception of resident engagement (79.3%), community building (74.7%), type of learning sessions (70.1%), and perceived impact on resident and/or faculty wellness (59.8%). Top reasons for choosing virtual didactics were perceived convenience for residents (75.6%) or faculty (60.0%) and perceived impact on resident and/or faculty wellness (43.3%).
Nationwide, EM residency programs spend most didactic time in person. Modality choice is influenced by didactic content as well as sociocultural considerations. Future investigation into the validity of perceptions that participants are more engaged and learn better with in-person didactics is warranted.
在新冠疫情期间，教学方式从面对面授课广泛转变为虚拟授课之后，一些急诊医学住院医师培训项目保留了虚拟教学时间，而其他项目则完全恢复了面对面教学。在这项针对急诊医学住院医师培训项目的全国性调查中，我们探讨了当前虚拟教学时间与面对面教学时间在全国范围内的分布情况，以及使用每种教学方式的情况和动机。
通过Qualtrics设计了一项带有分支逻辑的横断面调查。通过急诊医学住院医师培训主任委员会（CORD）的邮件列表进行分发；未回复的项目会直接收到电子邮件，并随后收到提醒。通过Microsoft Excel进行分析和描述性统计。所有作者对叙述性评论进行了主题分析。
我们收到了281个项目中174个项目的回复（61.9%）。采用面对面和虚拟教学相结合的“混合”项目占受访者的51.7%，其余49.3%仅采用面对面教学。在混合项目中，77.3%的项目面对面授课时间超过75%。模拟教学（100%）和操作教学（99%）最适合面对面进行，而口试练习（30.2%）支持虚拟教学。面对面授课最常见的动机是认为对住院医师和/或教员的学习有影响（86.8%）、对住院医师参与度的认知（79.3%）、社区建设（74.7%）、学习课程类型（70.1%）以及对住院医师和/或教员健康的认知影响（59.8%）。选择虚拟教学的首要原因是认为对住院医师（75.6%）或教员（60.0%）方便，以及对住院医师和/或教员健康的认知影响（43.3%）。
在全国范围内，急诊医学住院医师培训项目的大部分教学时间是面对面进行的。教学方式的选择受教学内容以及社会文化因素的影响。有必要对参与者在面对面教学中参与度更高且学习效果更好这种认知的有效性进行未来研究。
