Background: The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) in emergency medicine (EM) is one of the most important items in a student's application to EM residency and replaces narrative letters of recommendation. The SLOE ranks students into quantile categories in comparison to their peers for overall performance during an EM clerkship and for their expected rank list position. Gender differences exist in several assessment methods in undergraduate and graduate medical education. No authors have recently studied whether there are differences in the global assessment of men and women on the SLOE.Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine if there is an effect of student gender on the outcome of a SLOE. Methods:This was a retrospective observational study examining SLOEs from applications to a large urban, academic EM residency program from 2015 to 2016. Composite scores (CSs), comparative rank scores (CRSs), and rank list position scores (RLPSs) on the SLOE were compared for female and male applicants using Mann-Whitney U-test.Results: From a total 1,408 applications, 1,038 applicants met inclusion criteria (74%). We analyzed 2,092 SLOEs from these applications. Female applicants were found to have slightly lower and thus better CRSs, RLPSs, and CSs than men. The mean CRS for women was 2.27 and 2.45 for men (p < 0.001); RLPS for women was 2.32 and 2.52 for men (p < 0.001) and CS was 4.59 for women and 4.97 for men (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Female applicants have somewhat better performance on the EM SLOE than their male counterparts.From the

Background: The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) was developed to make letters of recommendation in emergency medicine (EM) more objective and discerning. Typically, students obtain one SLOE from a home EM rotation and at least one more SLOE from an away clerkship. It is unclear if students perform better on their home or away EM rotations.Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine if students perform better on the group SLOE at their home institution compared to an away institution. Methods:The authors performed a retrospective application review of all allopathic applicants to an urban, academic EM residency program. The authors calculated a composite score (CS) for each group SLOE, using the global assessment scores for comparative rank and rank list position. A lower CS indicates better performance. The authors compared mean CS for students' first home rotations with first away rotations. For students in the study who had a third (second away or second home site) SLOE available, the authors compared mean CS on the students' first SLOEs with mean CS on the students' third SLOEs.Results: A total of 624 records were included in the primary analysis. There was a small, but significant difference between mean CS for students' home rotations when compared to away rotations (4.67 vs. 4.85, p = 0.024). Students performed better on their home rotations. Students who had three SLOEs available performed worse on their third rotation (first = 4.40, second = 4.63, third = 4.77, p = 0.012 for first vs. third). For all available SLOEs, more than 50% of students fell into the top 10% or top one-third categories.Conclusion: Students perform slightly better on their home EM rotations. Students' mean SLOE CS is slightly worse for a third rotation when compared to a first rotation.

IntroductionGiven the nationwide increase in emergency department (ED) visits it is of paramount importance for hospitals to find efficient ways to manage patient flow. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a significant difference in success rates, length of stay (LOS), and other demographic factors in two cohorts of patients admitted directly to an ED observation unit (EDOU) under an abdominal pain protocol by a physician in triage (bypassing the main ED) versus those admitted via the traditional pathway (evaluated and treated in the main ED prior to EDOU admission).MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to a protocol-driven EDOU with a diagnosis of abdominal pain in a single university hospital center ED. We obtained compiled data for all patients admitted to the EDOU with a diagnosis of abdominal pain that met EDOU protocol admission criteria. We divided data for each cohort into age, gender, payer status, and LOS. The data were then analyzed to assess any significant differences between the cohorts.ResultsA total of 327 patients were eligible for this study (85 triage group, 242 main ED group). The total success rate was 90.8% (n=297) and failure rate was 9.2% (n=30). We observed no significant differences in success rates between those dispositioned to the EDOU by triage physicians (90.6%) and those via the traditional route (90.5 % p) = 0.98. However, we found a significant difference between the two groups regarding total LOS with significantly shorter main ED times and EDOU times among patients sent to the EDOU by the physician-in-triage group (p< .001).ConclusionThere were no significant differences in EDOU disposition outcomes in patients admitted to an EDOU by a physician-in-triage or via the traditional route. However, there were statistically significant shorter LOSs in patients admitted to the EDOU by triage physicians. The data from this study support the implementation of a physician-in-triage model in combination with the EDOU in improving efficiency in the treatment of abdominal pain. This knowledge may spur action to cut healthcare costs and improve patient flow and timely decision-making in hospitals with EDOUs.

No abstract

The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act passed by Congress in 2008has changed prescribing practices in the United States. Electronic prescriptions (e-prescriptions) have now become the most widely used form of prescriptions. The government in fact financially discourages the use of the older more traditional paper prescriptions.Many emergency medicine physicians fear that this blanket policy is not in the best interests of their unique patient population. It is the belief of many of these physicians that emergency patients are more likely to fill paper prescriptions than e-prescriptions. This theory is predicated on the knowledge that many emergency patients are less established in the system and their visits are frequently rushed, chaotic, and unplanned. For these reasons, the e-prescription system is not ideal for them and the theorized consequence is that many e-prescriptions go unfilled, leaving patients to go untreated.A retrospective analysis was conducted at the emergency department of the University of California, Irvine Medical Center to identify insured adult patients who were given a noncontrolled substance prescription in either the paper or electronic form. Pharmacy claim data to vi insurances was used to determine whether these prescriptions were filled. 405 encounters were included, 218 of which included e-prescriptions and 187 of which included paper prescriptions.Our findings showed that paper prescriptions are filled at the same rate as electronic prescriptions (58.3% versus 57.8% p=1). These results were surprising as they contradicted what many physicians believe is the situation. More studies are needed in order to be able to broaden these results to the entire emergency medicine patient population, but these results may begin to alter prescription practices in emergency medicine.