A National Evaluation of the Scholarly Activity Requirement in Residency Programs: A Survey of Emergency Medicine Program Directors

Abstract

Objectives: The Review Committee for Emergency Medicine (RC-EM) requirement for scholarly activity, which programs may define as an original research project or some other form of scholarly activity, applies to all EM residents. The objectives of this study were to: 1) describe the percentage of residency programs that require an original research project to meet the RC-EM requirement for scholarly activity, 2) describe specific challenges and resources for residents completing the RC-EM scholarly activity requirement, and 3) identify associations between the interpretation of the requirement and early career outcomes.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional online survey of program or research directors from all U.S. allopathic EM residency programs. Respondents were queried about key demographics and domains relating to research curriculum, resources, expectations, outcomes, challenges, and future opportunities. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results: The overall response rate was 113 of 156 (72%) EM residency programs. Respondents were more likely to represent university-based programs, but otherwise did not differ from nonrespondents across key demographic criteria. An original research project was required by 39% of responding programs, with a minimum deliverable in 93% of these programs. Program directors listed data collection and study design as the principle challenges residents face while completing their scholarly activities. Faculty mentorship, biostatistical support, and travel support were common resources reportedly available to residents. Comparison of programs with an original research requirement to those without revealed many differences in outcomes. Programs with a research requirement were more likely to have residents with oral or poster presentations (46% vs. 25%, mean difference = 21%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 16% to 28%), published manuscripts (25% vs. 18%, mean difference = 7%, 95% CI = 2% to 10%), entering fellowship training after residency (27% vs. 20%, mean difference = 7%, 95% CI = 4% to 10%), and using a biostatistician (64% vs. 28%, median difference = 26%, 95% CI = 24% to 28%). There were no statistically significant differences in other evaluations of resources or outcome measures, including resident choice of academic career after leaving residency.

Conclusions: There is no consistent interpretation and implementation of the RC-EM requirement for scholarly activity among EM residency programs. Residency programs requiring an original research project were more likely to have residents with accepted oral or poster presentations, published manuscripts, and entering fellowships after residency training.