Myers Justin G, Shah Aalap, Murali Neeraja, Reilly Christopher, Glasser Joshua, Shenvi Christina
Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, USA.
Emergency Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA.
Cureus. 2025 Apr 22;17(4):e82787. doi: 10.7759/cureus.82787. eCollection 2025 Apr.
Background Methods for ongoing faculty education in academic emergency medicine (EM) have evolved over the years. In addition to traditional in-person lectures or grand rounds, education may be supplemented by online or asynchronous content. The preferences of EM physicians for faculty education content and format are not well understood. We sought to determine barriers and facilitating factors for EM faculty to participate in educational sessions and/or content, as well as faculty preferences on subject matter, content delivery methods, and personnel. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey of EM faculty physicians from 18 US academic medical centers. Survey invitations were delivered by a site representative at each institution using a Qualtrics survey instrument (Qualtrics, Provo, US). Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics via percentiles. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results A total of 230 individuals from 18 academic departments across the US responded to the survey. Clinical experience ranged from 0-5 years (25%) to 21+ years (20%). Lectures were the most preferred format, cited by 90% of participants, followed by hands-on sessions (66%), interactive sessions (47%), and journal clubs (46%). A hybrid format (virtual + in-person) was the most desired delivery format as well as the most common delivery method. Faculty considered clinical duties as the greatest barrier to attending grand rounds (55%), followed by conflicts with appointments/meetings (51%) and uninteresting topics or content (17%). Faculty preferred more content on procedural skills or hands-on training, critical care/resuscitation, and academic development/teaching techniques. Conclusions Faculty development opportunities are important for physicians to maintain and grow their skills and knowledge. However, there are many barriers and competing priorities to attendance. Faculty were most motivated to attend based on the topic and the speaker's skill and reputation. They also valued hybrid and asynchronous options to allow attendance around other clinical and academic duties. Organizers of grand rounds sessions should consider their faculty's particular needs, interests, and motivations to plan more valuable programming and maximize engagement.
背景 多年来，学术急诊医学（EM）领域持续开展教职员工教育的方法不断演变。除了传统的面对面讲座或大查房外，教育还可通过在线或异步内容进行补充。急诊医学医生对教职员工教育内容和形式的偏好尚不清楚。我们试图确定急诊医学教职员工参与教育课程和/或内容的障碍和促进因素，以及他们在主题、内容交付方式和人员方面的偏好。方法 我们对来自美国18个学术医疗中心的急诊医学教职医生进行了横断面调查。调查邀请由每个机构的现场代表使用Qualtrics调查工具（美国普罗沃市的Qualtrics公司）发送。定量数据通过百分位数进行描述性统计分析。定性数据采用主题分析。结果 来自美国18个学术部门的230人回复了调查。临床经验范围从0至5年（25%）到21年以上（20%）。讲座是最受欢迎的形式，90%的参与者提到，其次是实践课程（66%）、互动课程（47%）和期刊俱乐部（46%）。混合形式（虚拟+面对面）是最理想的交付形式，也是最常见的交付方式。教职员工认为临床工作是参加大查房的最大障碍（55%），其次是与预约/会议冲突（51%）以及主题或内容无趣（17%）。教职员工更喜欢关于操作技能或实践培训、重症监护/复苏以及学术发展/教学技巧的更多内容。结论 教职员工发展机会对于医生维持和提升技能及知识很重要。然而，参加存在许多障碍和相互竞争的优先事项。教职员工基于主题以及演讲者的技能和声誉最有动力参加。他们也重视混合和异步选项，以便能围绕其他临床和学术工作参加。大查房组织者应考虑其教职员工的特定需求、兴趣和动机，以规划更有价值的课程并最大限度地提高参与度。
