Objective: Career paths leading to department chair positions are elusive. Women represent only 11% of academic emergency department (ED) chairs. It is unclear whether the pathway to chair is different for men and women; the characteristics, achievements, and qualifications among those who become ED chairs is unknown.Methods: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of curriculum vitae (CV) of current ED chairs in departments with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency programs. Former women chairs were included due to paucity of current women chairs. Statistics were calculated using bivariate and multivariate analysis.Results: Of 163 eligible chairs, 88 CV (54%) were obtained, including six former women chairs. A majority (86.4%) self-identified as White/Caucasian, 21.5% were women, 46% were chief residents, 28.4% completed additional postgraduate degrees, and 21.8% were fellowship trained. At time of chair appointment, 58% were professor rank, 53.5% held ED operations roles, and 32% served as vice chair. Women were more likely to be in educational (53% vs. 22%) versus operational (26% vs. 61%, p = 0.02) roles. Women obtained more advanced degrees (47% vs. 25%, p = 0.02), were awarded more nonfederal grants (median = 7 vs. 3, p = 0.04), and achieved more national committee leadership (median = 4 vs. 1, p = 0.02). There were no gender differences in fellowship training, awards, leadership training programs, publications, federal grants, or national/international lectures after adjusting for years in practice. Conclusion:While the majority of chairs held prior leadership roles in ED operations, only one in five women chairs did, suggesting gender differences in the path to chair attainment. These differences in paths may contribute to persistent gender disparities in ED chairs and may be influenced by career path choices, implicit bias, and structural barriers.

BackgroundNo published curricula in the area of medical business ethics exist. This is surprising given that physicians wrestle daily with business decisions and that professional associations, the Institute of Medicine, Health and Human Services, Congress, and industry have issued related guidelines over the past 5 years. To fill this gap, the authors aimed (1) to identify the full range of medical business ethics topics that experts consider important to teach, and (2) to establish curricular priorities through expert consensus.MethodsIn spring 2012, the authors conducted an online Delphi survey with two heterogeneous panels of experts recruited in the United States. One panel focused on business ethics in medical practice (n = 14), and 1 focused on business ethics in medical research (n = 12).ResultsPanel 1 generated an initial list of 14 major topics related to business ethics in medical practice, and subsequently rated 6 topics as very important or essential to teach. Panel 2 generated an initial list of 10 major topics related to business ethics in medical research, and subsequently rated 5 as very important or essential. In both domains, the panel strongly recommended addressing problems that conflicts of interest can cause, legal guidelines, and the goals or ideals of the profession.ConclusionsThe Bander Center for Medical Business Ethics at Saint Louis University will use the results of the Delphi panel to develop online curricular resources for each of the highest rated topics.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-235) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIn recent years, issues in medical business ethics (MBE), such as conflicts of interest (COI), Medicare fraud and abuse, and the structure and functioning of reimbursement systems, have received significant attention from the media and professional associations in the United States. As a result of highly publicized instances of financial interests altering physician decision-making, major professional organizations and government bodies have produced reports and guidelines to encourage self-regulation and impose rules to limit physician relationships with for-profit entities. Nevertheless, no published curricula exist in the area of MBE. This study aimed to establish a baseline level of knowledge and the educational goals medical students and residents prioritize in the area of MBE.Methods732 medical students and 380 residents at two academic medical centers in the state of Missouri, USA, completed a brief survey indicating their awareness of major MBE guidance documents, knowledge of key MBE research, beliefs about the goals of an education in MBE, and the areas of MBE they were most interested in learning more about.ResultsMedical students and residents had little awareness of recent and major reports on MBE topics, and had minimal knowledge of basic MBE facts. Residents scored statistically better than medical students in both of these areas. Medical students and residents were in close agreement regarding the goals of an MBE curriculum. Both groups showed significant interest in learning more about MBE topics with an emphasis on background topics such as “the business aspects of medicine” and “health care delivery systems”.ConclusionsThe content of major reports by professional associations and expert bodies has not trickled down to medical students and residents, yet both groups are interested in learning more about MBE topics. Our survey suggests potentially beneficial ways to frame and embed MBE topics into the larger framework of medical education.

Objective: Previous studies looking at emergency department (ED) crowding and delays of care on outcome measures for certain medical and surgical patients excluded trauma patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the relationship of trauma patients’ ED length of stay (EDLOS) on hospital length of stay (HLOS) and on mortality; and to examine the association of ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Methods: This was a retrospective database review of Level 1 and 2 trauma patients at a single site Level 1 Trauma Center in the Midwest over a one year period. Out of a sample of 1,492, there were 1,207 patients in the analysis after exclusions. The main outcome was the difference in hospital mortality by EDLOS group (short was less than 4 hours vs. long, greater than 4 hours). HLOS was compared by EDLOS group, stratified by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) category (< 0.5, 0.51-0.89, > 0.9) to describe the association between ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Results: There was no significant difference in mortality by EDLOS (4.8% short and 4% long, p = .5). There was no significant difference in HLOS between EDLOS, when adjusted for TRISS. ED census did not affect EDLOS (p = .59), however; EDLOS was longer when the percentage of staffed hospital beds available was lower (p < .001).Conclusions: While hospital overcrowding did increase EDLOS, there was no association between EDLOS and mortality or HLOS in leveled trauma patients at this institution.

No abstract