Medical trainees (applicants, students, and house officers) often engage in global health initiatives to enhance their own education through research and patient care. These endeavors may concomitantly prove of value to host nations in filling unmet clinical needs. At present, healthcare institutions generally focus on the safety of the trainee and the welfare of potential patients and research subjects when sanctioning such programs. The American medical community has historically afforded less consideration to the ethics of engagement by trainees from the United States in nations known for serious human rights transgressions. This essay examines the ethics of such endeavors and argues for increased consideration of these broader considerations when trainees engage in global health work abroad.

Introduction: A critical component for successful implementation of any innovation is an organization's readiness for change. Competence by Design (CBD) is the Royal College's major change initiative to reform the training of medical specialists in Canada. The purpose of this study was to measure readiness to implement CBD among the 2019 launch disciplines. Methods: An online survey was distributed to program directors of the 2019 CBD launch disciplines one month prior to implementation. Questions were developed based on the R = MC2 framework for organizational readiness. They addressed program motivation to implement CBD, general capacity for change, and innovation-specific capacity. Questions related to motivation and general capacity were scored using a 5-point scale of agreement. Innovation-specific capacity was measured by asking participants whether they had completed 33 key pre-implementation tasks (yes/no) in preparation for CBD. Bivariate correlations were conducted to examine the relationship between motivation, general capacity and innovation specific capacity. Results: Survey response rate was 42% (n = 79). A positive correlation was found between all three domains of readiness (motivation and general capacity, r = 0.73, p < 0.01; motivation and innovation specific capacity, r = 0.52, p < 0.01; general capacity and innovation specific capacity, r = 0.47, p < 0.01). Most respondents agreed that successful launch of CBD was a priority (74%). Fewer felt that CBD was a move in the right direction (58%) and that implementation was a manageable change (53%). While most programs indicated that their leadership (94%) and faculty and residents (87%) were supportive of change, 42% did not have experience implementing large-scale innovation and 43% indicated concerns about adequate support staff. Programs had completed an average of 72% of pre-implementation tasks. No difference was found between disciplines (p = 0.11). Activities related to curriculum mapping, competence committees and programmatic assessment had been completed by >90% of programs, while <50% of programs had engaged off-service rotations. Conclusion: Measuring readiness for change aids in the identification of factors that promote or inhibit successful implementation. These results highlight several areas where programs struggle in preparation for CBD launch. Emergency medicine training programs can use this data to target additional implementation support and ongoing faculty development initiatives.

Introduction: Participation in Global Health (GH) electives can improve resourcefulness, cultural and ethical insight, and personal development. Risks to trainees, hosts and institutions may be minimized through pre-departure and post-elective training. In 2016 such training was mandatory in only 3 Canadian residency programs, however there is no published data specific to Canadian Emergency Medicine (EM) programs. This study sought to identify current GH elective requirements and related perceived gaps among Royal College EM programs. Methods: We conducted two cross-sectional surveys in 2019 (one each for Royal College EM PDs and residents) via email regarding training requirements for GH electives. Additionally, a survey link was distributed in the CAEP EM resident newsletter. We also contacted university PGME and/or global health offices to understand and collate university-wide requirements and resources. Results: Nine PDs responded, with 78% reporting having 1-5 residents participate in GH electives yearly. Many PDs were unsure of the requirements surrounding GH electives; two reported that pre-departure training was required, while none reported requiring post-departure debriefs. Overall, 67% of PDs felt that their residents were moderately prepared for GH electives and 33% felt they were unprepared to some degree. Thirty-three percent believed that improvements should be made to either pre-departure training or both pre- and post-departure training, while 56% were unsure if improvements were needed. Forty-seven out of an estimated 380 residents responded. Thirty-five percent of residents had completed a GH elective during residency. Of residents who participated in a GH elective, only one (6%) reported feeling very prepared; 18 residents (43%) reported there was a need to improve trainings. Residents reported a number of challenges during electives (lack of resources, inadequate supervision, safety issues) and identified priority topics for training. Conclusion: Although EM residents are participating in GH electives, the majority of EM residency programs do not require pre- or post-departure training. Some PDs and residents report varying levels of preparedness, and residents acknowledge a variety of challenges during GH electives. This information can be used to inform pre-departure/post-elective GH training or to encourage EM residents to access university-wide training.

Introduction: With a shift towards competency-based medical education, it is crucial to not only emphasize learner abilities such as clinical skills but also leadership in the conduct of research. Though the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada's (RCPSC) training objectives for Emergency Medicine (EM) residents state that the specialist physician be able to describe the principles of research, the research methodology curriculum across EM training programs in Canada is likely variable. The primary goal of this study was to describe the variability of research methodology teaching among RCPSC-EM residency programs. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to English-speaking RCPSC-EM program directors (PDs) and EM residents. The survey investigated residents' and PDs’ thoughts on the adequacy of their local curriculum and asked them to quantify their research methodology teaching. The primary outcome was the frequency and content of current research methodology and research ethics teaching as well as a description of scholarly project requirements of EM residency programs across Canada. The data was presented with simple descriptive statistics. Results: 79 EM residents and 7 PDs responded (response rate 22.3% and 58.3%, respectively). All 7 PDs indicate having a research methodology curriculum while 71.6% of residents are aware of this curriculum. Only 57.1% of PDs report having formal assessments. Most programs (71.4%) teach via small groups while 28.6% of programs use large group sessions. Residents identify teaching as led by research staff (68.9%), staff physicians (60%), and EM researchers (57.8%), while only 17.8% use outside educators. Students noted various modalities of curriculum feedback such as online surveys, weekly forms, and verbal feedback. Regarding the strength of the curricula, 85.7% of PDs believed their curriculum prepares residents for board exams, while only 62.2% of residents felt similarly. When asked about using a standard web-based curriculum module if available, 60.5% of residents responded in favour. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that EM residency programs across Canada vary with respect to research methodology curriculum and discrepancies exist between residents’ and program directors’ perceptions of the curriculum. Given the lack of a standardized research methodology curriculum for these residency programs, there is an opportunity for curriculum development to improve training in research methodology.

Introduction: Direct observation is essential to assess medical trainees and provide them with feedback to support their progression from novice to competent physicians. However, learners consistently report infrequent observations, and calls to increase direct observation in medical training abound. In this study, a theory-driven approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was applied to systematically investigate factors that serve as barriers and enablers to direct observation in residency training. Methods: Semi-structured interviews of faculty and residents from various specialties at two large tertiary-care teaching hospitals were conducted. An interview guide based on the TDF was used to capture 14 theoretical domains that may influence direct observation. Interview transcripts were independently coded using direct content analysis by two researchers, and specific beliefs were generated by grouping similar responses. Relevant domains were identified based on the frequencies of beliefs reported, presence of conflicting beliefs, and perceived influence on direct observation practices. Results: Data saturation was achieved after 12 resident and 13 faculty interviews, with a total of 10 different specialties represented. Median postgraduate year among residents was 4 (range 1-6), and mean years of independent practice among faculty was 10.3 (SD=8.6). Ten TDF domains were identified as influencing direct observation: knowledge, skills, beliefs about consequences, social professional role and identity, intention, goals, memory/attention/decision-making, environmental context and resources, social influences, and behavioural regulation. Discord between faculty and resident intentions to engage in direct observation, coupled with the social expectation that residents should be responsible for ensuring observations occur, was identified as a key barrier. Additionally, competing demands identified across multiple TDF domains emerged as an important and pervasive theme. Conclusion: This study identified key barriers and enablers to direct observation. The influencing factors identified in this study provide a basis for the development of potential strategies aimed at embedding direct observation as a routine pedagogical practice in residency training.

Introduction / Innovation Concept: Simulation-based medical education (SBME) has seen increased application in medical education. Emergency medicine (EM) trainees must develop a diverse skill set to smoothly transition to clinical practice and ensure optimal patient outcomes. The competency-based medical education (CBME) framework helps ensure residents develop the required expertise relevant to each of the CanMEDs roles. Simulation is a valuable supplement to hands-on clinical experience and allows skill development in a low-risk setting. The EM Simulation book serves to facilitate the effective application of simulation in our curriculum. Methods: A number of resources were compiled to meet the needs of our simulation program within Memorial University of Newfoundland. Personal knowledge/experience of the author and local contacts provide site relevant content. Prior training helped in review and selection of materials on simulation theory and debriefing. Core EM resources were sourced for information on procedural training. Literature review on simulation was used to compile a list of resources and materials for further reading. The development and revision of the manual continues as an iterative process with sequential edits based on review and feedback. Qualitative evaluation of the design and value of this document is planned to get feedback from key stakeholders including learners, faculty and simulation lab staff. Curriculum, Tool, or Material: The final product is a 94-page document provided in print and electronic format to the EM residents and several faculty involved in simulation. It introduces residents to our simulation program, provides relevant background information and orients them to this modality of curriculum delivery. Theory and rationale behind SBME is included. Information on the key role of debriefing is highlighted. Several core EM procedural topics are covered with tips on practice station set up. Additional learning resources are noted, including information on case development for potential teachers. Conclusion: The simulation book brings together key information to optimize the simulation-based medical education experience for EM residents at Memorial University.

Introduction: In response to concerns in the literature over the quality of completed work-based assessments (WBAs), faculty development and rater training initiatives have been developed. The Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR) was designed to evaluate these interventions by providing a measure of the quality of documented assessments on In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITERs). Daily Encounter Cards (DECs) are a common form of WBA used in the Emergency Department setting. A tool to evaluate initiatives aimed at improving the quality of completion of this widely used WBA is also needed. The purpose of this study was to provide validity evidence to support using the CCERR to assess the quality of DEC completion. Methods: This study was conducted in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Ottawa. Six experts in resident assessment grouped 60 DECs into three quality categories (high, average, poor) based on their perception of how informative each DEC was for reporting judgments of the resident’s performance. Eight clinical supervisors (blinded to the expert groupings) scored the 10 most representative DECs in each group using the CCERR. Mean scores were compared using a univariate ANOVA to determine if the CCERR was able to discriminate DEC quality. Reliability for the CCERR scores was determined using a generalizability analysis. Results: Mean CCERR scores for the high (37.3, SD=1.2), average (24.2, SD=3.3), and poor (14.4, SD=1.4) quality groups differed (p<0.001). A pairwise comparison demonstrated that differences between all three quality groups were statistically significant (p<0.001), indicating that the CCERR was able to discriminate DEC quality as judged by experts. A generalizability study demonstrated the majority of score variation was due to differences in DECs. The reliability with a single rater was 0.95. Conclusion: There is strong validity evidence to support the use of the CCERR to evaluate DEC quality. It can be used to provide feedback to supervisors for improving assessment reporting, and offers a quantitative measure of change in assessor behavior when utilized as a program evaluation instrument for determining the quality of completed DECs.