National needs assessment of emergency medicine faculty regarding scholarly activity practices and support

Objectives

We aimed to assess the attitudes and perceptions of scholarly activity (SA) practices among emergency medicine (EM) physicians who are engaged in training residents. This study examined the belief and need for modern-day SA, potential barriers, and department resources provided.

Methods

We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey study of EM physicians across the United States identified from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American College of Osteopathic Physicians directories. The survey consisted of 18 items regarding demographics, attitude toward SA, department support, and questions regarding residency programs.

Results

A total of 660 survey recipients completed the survey out of a possible pool of 4296 individuals (15% response rate), of which 530 (80%) indicated they were core faculty. Of core faculty, 428 (80.8%) were part of an allopathic program, whereas 102 (19.2%) were part of an osteopathic program. Department support was provided for protected time (385; 58.3%), research staff (346; 52.4%), Institutional Review Board preparation (240; 36.4%), and biostatistics (314; 47.6%). Of all the institutional roles, the largest percentage (82/125, 65.6%) of chair/vice chair/associate chairs strongly agreed or agreed (score of 5 or 4 of 5) with the statement, “Overall, I am satisfied with the scholarly support provided by my department.” There was no difference in agreement with this statement between respondents in an allopathic versus osteopathic program (210/428, 49.1% allopathic; 45/102, 44.1% osteopathic).

Conclusion

There is a need for increased departmental support for SA. To optimally implement the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) SA requirements into strategy and action, the ACGME should consider providing EM residency programs with an outline of best SA practices to foster a uniform consensus across academic institutions.