Survey of follow-up systems in emergency medicine residencies: analysis and proposal.

B. Bentley, D. D. DeBehnke, Oscar Ma

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: For educational purposes, the Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine requires that emergency medicine residencies "provide a mechanism for each resident to obtain information on outcomes of patients the resident has evaluated in the emergency department." The authors analyzed the current patient follow-up systems of emergency medicine residencies and, based upon survey results propose a comprehensive organized system of follow-up. METHODS: The 84 emergency medicine residency directors listed in the 1991 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Handbook were polled regarding the current follow- up systems at all hospitals affiliated with their residencies. The survey contained 11 items, including two five-point Likert scales for rating system effectiveness and satisfaction. A description of each hospital's follow-up system was requested, and other comments were reviewed. RESULTS: The 72 (86%) respondents represented residencies with a total of 138 affiliated hospitals, of which 89 (64.5%) had formal follow-up systems. Of those 89 hospitals, 39% (n = 80) residency directors reported that fewer than half of their residents used the systems, 63% (n = 87) had mandatory compliance policies; 53% had the capability for residents to obtain discharge summaries on admitted patients; and 66% (n = 83) had mechanisms for follow-up of patients released from the emergency department. Twenty-three percent of the systems were considered effective, with ratings of 4 or higher and only 31% received satisfaction ratings of 4 or more. CONCLUSIONS: Most emergency residency-affiliated hospitals in our survey had follow-up systems in place. Of existing systems, only a minority were rated by residency directors as effective or satisfactory. A model for a comprehensive system of patient follow-up is proposed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1116-1120
Number of pages5
JournalAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
Volume1
Issue number2
StatePublished - Mar 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Emergency Medicine
Internship and Residency
Hospital Emergency Service
Guideline Adherence
Surveys and Questionnaires
Advisory Committees
Systems Analysis
Emergencies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Survey of follow-up systems in emergency medicine residencies : analysis and proposal. / Bentley, B.; DeBehnke, D. D.; Ma, Oscar.

In: Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 2, 03.1994, p. 1116-1120.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3fc56559bdf0464abf81c107f2588cce,
title = "Survey of follow-up systems in emergency medicine residencies: analysis and proposal.",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: For educational purposes, the Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine requires that emergency medicine residencies {"}provide a mechanism for each resident to obtain information on outcomes of patients the resident has evaluated in the emergency department.{"} The authors analyzed the current patient follow-up systems of emergency medicine residencies and, based upon survey results propose a comprehensive organized system of follow-up. METHODS: The 84 emergency medicine residency directors listed in the 1991 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Handbook were polled regarding the current follow- up systems at all hospitals affiliated with their residencies. The survey contained 11 items, including two five-point Likert scales for rating system effectiveness and satisfaction. A description of each hospital's follow-up system was requested, and other comments were reviewed. RESULTS: The 72 (86{\%}) respondents represented residencies with a total of 138 affiliated hospitals, of which 89 (64.5{\%}) had formal follow-up systems. Of those 89 hospitals, 39{\%} (n = 80) residency directors reported that fewer than half of their residents used the systems, 63{\%} (n = 87) had mandatory compliance policies; 53{\%} had the capability for residents to obtain discharge summaries on admitted patients; and 66{\%} (n = 83) had mechanisms for follow-up of patients released from the emergency department. Twenty-three percent of the systems were considered effective, with ratings of 4 or higher and only 31{\%} received satisfaction ratings of 4 or more. CONCLUSIONS: Most emergency residency-affiliated hospitals in our survey had follow-up systems in place. Of existing systems, only a minority were rated by residency directors as effective or satisfactory. A model for a comprehensive system of patient follow-up is proposed.",
author = "B. Bentley and DeBehnke, {D. D.} and Oscar Ma",
year = "1994",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "1116--1120",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Survey of follow-up systems in emergency medicine residencies

T2 - analysis and proposal.

AU - Bentley, B.

AU - DeBehnke, D. D.

AU - Ma, Oscar

PY - 1994/3

Y1 - 1994/3

N2 - OBJECTIVE: For educational purposes, the Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine requires that emergency medicine residencies "provide a mechanism for each resident to obtain information on outcomes of patients the resident has evaluated in the emergency department." The authors analyzed the current patient follow-up systems of emergency medicine residencies and, based upon survey results propose a comprehensive organized system of follow-up. METHODS: The 84 emergency medicine residency directors listed in the 1991 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Handbook were polled regarding the current follow- up systems at all hospitals affiliated with their residencies. The survey contained 11 items, including two five-point Likert scales for rating system effectiveness and satisfaction. A description of each hospital's follow-up system was requested, and other comments were reviewed. RESULTS: The 72 (86%) respondents represented residencies with a total of 138 affiliated hospitals, of which 89 (64.5%) had formal follow-up systems. Of those 89 hospitals, 39% (n = 80) residency directors reported that fewer than half of their residents used the systems, 63% (n = 87) had mandatory compliance policies; 53% had the capability for residents to obtain discharge summaries on admitted patients; and 66% (n = 83) had mechanisms for follow-up of patients released from the emergency department. Twenty-three percent of the systems were considered effective, with ratings of 4 or higher and only 31% received satisfaction ratings of 4 or more. CONCLUSIONS: Most emergency residency-affiliated hospitals in our survey had follow-up systems in place. Of existing systems, only a minority were rated by residency directors as effective or satisfactory. A model for a comprehensive system of patient follow-up is proposed.

AB - OBJECTIVE: For educational purposes, the Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine requires that emergency medicine residencies "provide a mechanism for each resident to obtain information on outcomes of patients the resident has evaluated in the emergency department." The authors analyzed the current patient follow-up systems of emergency medicine residencies and, based upon survey results propose a comprehensive organized system of follow-up. METHODS: The 84 emergency medicine residency directors listed in the 1991 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Handbook were polled regarding the current follow- up systems at all hospitals affiliated with their residencies. The survey contained 11 items, including two five-point Likert scales for rating system effectiveness and satisfaction. A description of each hospital's follow-up system was requested, and other comments were reviewed. RESULTS: The 72 (86%) respondents represented residencies with a total of 138 affiliated hospitals, of which 89 (64.5%) had formal follow-up systems. Of those 89 hospitals, 39% (n = 80) residency directors reported that fewer than half of their residents used the systems, 63% (n = 87) had mandatory compliance policies; 53% had the capability for residents to obtain discharge summaries on admitted patients; and 66% (n = 83) had mechanisms for follow-up of patients released from the emergency department. Twenty-three percent of the systems were considered effective, with ratings of 4 or higher and only 31% received satisfaction ratings of 4 or more. CONCLUSIONS: Most emergency residency-affiliated hospitals in our survey had follow-up systems in place. Of existing systems, only a minority were rated by residency directors as effective or satisfactory. A model for a comprehensive system of patient follow-up is proposed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028402130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028402130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7621161

AN - SCOPUS:0028402130

VL - 1

SP - 1116

EP - 1120

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 2

ER -