Purpose Despite the implementation of professionalism curricula and standardised communication tools, inter‐physician conflict persists. In particular, the interface between emergency medicine (EM) and internal medicine (IM) has long been recognised as a source of conflict. The social nuances of this conflict remain underexplored, limiting educators' ability to comprehensively address these issues in the clinical learning environment. Thus, the authors explored EM and IM physicians' experiences with negotiating hospital admissions to better understand the social dynamics that contribute to inter‐physician conflict and provide foundational guidance for communication best practices. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) approach, the authors conducted 18 semi‐structured interviews between June and October 2020 with EM and IM physicians involved in conversations regarding admissions (CRAs). They asked participants to describe the social exchanges that influenced these conversations and to reflect on their experiences with inter‐physician conflict. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively. The relationships between the codes were discussed by the research team with the goal of developing conceptual connections between the emergent themes. Results Participants described how their approaches to CRAs were shaped by their specialty identity, and how allegiance to members of their group contributed to interpersonal conflict. This conflict was further promoted by a mutual sense of disempowerment within the organisation, misaligned expectations, and a desire to promote their group's prerogatives. Conflict was mitigated when patient care experiences fostered cross‐specialty team formation and collaboration that dissolved traditional group boundaries. Conclusions Conflict between EM and IM physicians during CRAs was primed by participants' specialty identities, their power struggles within the broader organisation, and their sense of duty to their own specialty. However, formation of collaborative inter‐specialty physician teams and expansion of identity to include colleagues from other specialties can mitigate inter‐physician conflict.

Background: As undergraduate medical students are acculturated into clinical practice, they develop a set of refined professional values that impact their decision making. We aimed to use students' reflective narratives on ethical dilemmas to identify how students experience moral distress while working in the emergency department (ED) to better understand how to support them in the development of their own agency to act ethically.Methods: Students rotating in our emergency medicine clerkship are required to submit an essay describing an ethical dilemma they encountered. We selected a random sample of these reflective pieces from the 2015 and 2016 academic years and used an exploratory qualitative thematic analytic approach to identify frequently recurring themes. This process was continued until thematic sufficiency was reached.Results: Two-hundred essays were coded, and seven unique themes were identified. The moral distress students described in reflective writing narratives stemmed from patient-provider discord, uncertainty, and social injustices. In each case, students were expressing the cognitive dissonance they experienced as they began to reconcile the difference between their perceptions of optimal patient care and the actual care delivered to the patient. Conclusion:Understanding medical students' cognitive dissonance in the ED will help educators support their students as they negotiate the differences between preferences and principles while being acculturated into clinical practice. Future work should develop specific interventions to promote educator understanding of learners' moral distress and to develop novel models of support for learners.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The objective of this study was to determine the advising and emergency medicine (EM) residency selection practices for special population applicant groups for whom traditional advice may not apply. Methods A survey was distributed on the Council of Residency Directors in EM and Clerkship Directors in EM Academy listservs. Multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and fill-in-the-blank questions addressed the average EM applicant and special population groups (osteopathic; international medical graduate (IMG); couples; at-risk; re-applicant; dual-accreditation applicant; and military). Percentages and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were calculated. Results One hundred four surveys were completed. Of respondents involved in the interview process, 2 or more standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs) were recommended for osteopathic (90.1% [95% CI 84–96]), IMG (82.5% [73–92]), dual-accreditation (46% [19–73]), and average applicants (48.5% [39–58]). Recommendations for numbers of residency applications to submit were 21–30 (50.5% [40.7–60.3]) for the average applicant, 31–40 (41.6% [31.3–51.8]) for osteopathic, and > 50 (50.9% [37.5–64.4]) for IMG. For below-average Step 1 performance, 56.0% [46.3–65.7] were more likely to interview with an average Step 2 score. 88.1% [81.8–94.4] will consider matching an EM-EM couple. The majority were more likely to interview a military applicant with similar competitiveness to a traditional applicant. Respondents felt the best option for re-applicants was to pursue the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) for a preliminary residency position. Conclusion Advising and residency selection practices for special population applicants differ from those of traditional EM applicants. These data serve as an important foundation for advising these distinct applicant groups in ways that were previously only speculative. While respondents agree on many advising recommendations, outliers exist.