Objectives Gender inequities are deeply rooted in our society and have significant negative consequences. Female physicians experience numerous gender-related inequities (e.g., microaggressions, harassment, violence). These inequities have farreaching consequences on health, well-being and career longevity and may result in the devaluing of various strengths that female emergency physicians bring to the table. This, in turn, has an impact on patient healthcare experience and outcomes. During the 2021 Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Academic Symposium, a national collaborative sought to understand gender inequities in emergency medicine in Canada. Methods We used a multistep stakeholder-engagement-based approach (harnessing both quantitative and qualitative methods) to identify and prioritize problems with gender equity in emergency medicine in Canada. Based on expert consultation and literature review, we developed recommendations to effect change for the higher priority problems. We then conducted a nationwide consultation with the Canadian emergency medicine community via online engagement and the CAEP Academic Symposium to ensure that these priority problems and solutions were appropriate for the Canadian context. Conclusion Via the above process, 15 recommendations were developed to address five unique problem areas. There is a dearth of research in this important area and we hope this preliminary work will serve as a starting point to fuel further research. To facilitate these scholarly endeavors, we have appended additional documents identifying other key problems with gender equity in emergency medicine in Canada as well as proposed next steps for future research.

ObjectivesThe Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) guidelines detail resuscitation practices in prehospital and austere environments. We sought to review the content and quality of the current TCCC and civilian prehospital literature and characterize knowledge gaps to offer recommendations for future research.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies assessing intervention techniques and devices used in civilian and military prehospital settings that could be applied to TCCC guidelines. Screening and data extraction were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality appraisal was conducted using appropriate tools.ResultsNinety-two percent (n=57) of studies were observational. Most randomized trials had low risk of bias, whereas observational studies had higher risk of bias. Interventions of massive hemorrhage control (n=17) were wound dressings and tourniquets, suggesting effective hemodynamic control. Airway management interventions (n=7) had high success rates with improved outcomes. Interventions of respiratory management (n=12) reported low success with needle decompression. Studies assessing circulation (n=18) had higher quality of evidence and suggested improved outcomes with component hemostatic therapy. Hypothermia prevention interventions (n=2) were generally effective. Other studies identified assessed the use of extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (n=3) and mixed interventions (n=2).ConclusionsThe evidence was largely non-randomized with heterogeneous populations, interventions, and outcomes, precluding robust conclusions in most subjects addressed in the review. Knowledge gaps identified included the use of blood products and concentrate of clotting factors in the prehospital setting.Level of evidenceSystematic review, level III.

Background Growing literature within postgraduate medical education demonstrates that female resident physicians experience gender bias throughout their training and future careers. This scoping review aims to describe the current body of literature on gender differences in emergency medicine (EM) resident assessment. Methods We conducted a scoping review which adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We included research involving resident physicians or fellows in EM (population and context), which focused on the impact of gender on assessments (concept). We searched seven databases from the databases' inception to April 4, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened citations, completed full‐text review, and abstracted data. A third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. Results A total of 667 unique citations were identified; 10 studies were included, and all were conducted within the United States. Four studies reported differences in EM resident assessments attributable to gender within workplace‐based assessments (qualitative comments and quantitative scores) by both attending physicians and nonphysicians. Six studies investigating clinical competency committee scores, procedural scores, and simulation‐based assessments did not report any significant differences attributable to gender. Conclusions This scoping review found that gender bias exists within EM resident assessment most notably at the level of narrative comments typically received via workplace‐based assessments. As female EM residents receive higher rates of negative or critical comments and discordant feedback documented on assessment, these findings raise concern about added barriers female EM residents may face while progressing through residency and the impact on their clinical and professional development.

Background:In situ simulation shows promise as an effective training tool for trauma; however, its disruptive nature is a major downside. Although the benefits of in situ simulation in trauma have been described, the potential perceived harms of running an unscheduled simulation using working staff are unknown. The aim of this study is to assess trauma team members' perceptions regarding the value of in situ simulation relative to its perceived impact on patient care. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal survey study including all members of the multidisciplinary trauma team at the Halifax Infirmary, a level 1 trauma centre in Nova Scotia. Following an in situ simulation, participants were given a 10-question survey with answers on a 5-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 61 surveys were collected. Survey respondents were grouped into allied health (nurses, paramedics, respiratory therapists; 44%), learners (residents and medical students; 44%) and other (staff physicians, those who did not specify their role; 12%). Respondents felt that participating in the in situ simulation delayed (28%) or compromised patient care (5%) infrequently. No respondents felt that patients were harmed. In situ simulation was felt to identify important safety issues (70%), improve trauma team communication (89%) and improve trauma patient care (89%). The in situ simulation was considered enjoyable (92%) and was identified as a good educational experience (95%). It was felt by participants that simulations should continue to be done in situ in the trauma bay rather than in a sim laboratory (54%). Conclusion:The trauma in situ simulation program at the Halifax Infirmary is not felt to cause delays or compromise patient care. The program is considered to be a good learning opportunity that identifies safety issues and improves patient care. Epidemiology of submersion injuries inCanadian children and adolescents: 1990-2018.