Intern Orthopedic Rotation Versus Emergency Medicine Procedure Month: Which one Derives More Opportunity?

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) defines 18 “key procedures” as requirements in emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. The post-graduate year-1 (PGY-1) curriculum provides an early foundation for EM trainees to gain procedural experience, but traditional PGY-1 rotations may not provide robust procedural opportunities. Our objective was to replace a traditional orthopedic rotation with a 4-week rotation that emphasized EM procedure acquisition and comprehension. Although all residents met ACGME procedural requirements before the curricular modification, the purpose of this month was to increase overall procedure numbers. The block contained dedicated procedure shifts in the emergency department as well as an asynchronous, self-directed learning course. We sought to compare the number of procedures performed by PGY-1 residents during their orthopedic rotation (the year before implementation), to the number of procedures performed during their procedure rotation (the year after implementation). METHODS The total number of procedures performed and logged by PGY-1 residents during the traditional orthopedic rotation (during the year prior to implementation of the new procedure rotation) were compared to the total number of procedures by the first class to undergo the new procedure rotation the following year. Thirty resident logs were reviewed (15 per class). Data were analyzed using SAS NPAR1WAY; Z < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS When compared to the orthopedic rotation, the procedure rotation had statistically significant higher numbers of procedures per resident (22, standard deviation [SD] 12, vs 11.4, SD 7.6; Z = 0.0177). A wide variety of nonorthopedic procedures accounted for the increased numbers, (13.6, SD 10.3, vs 0.9, SD 0.9; Z < 0.001). While the average number of orthopedic procedures was slightly less on the procedure rotation, there was no statistical difference (orthopedic rotation 10.13, procedure rotation 8.26; Z = 0.4605). Notably, fewer procedures were performed when 2 residents were on the procedure rotation at the same time (21 vs 10.1). CONCLUSION This analysis demonstrated a larger number and a wider variety of procedures performed by PGY-1 residents during a dedicated procedure rotation compared to a traditional orthopedic rotation. Furthermore, exposure to orthopedic procedures did not decline significantly. Limitations of the study include a modest number of subjects. Data may be limited by the consistency of procedure logging by individual residents. Further studies may assess procedural competency after PGY-1 year of training.