- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,881
- Reaction score
- 3,771
- Points
- 5,476
- Location
- Texas
- Attending Physician
Great question.
In the days when there were literally no docs to work in rural EDs, I could understand the rationale of allowing for somewhat laxed program accrediting guidelines. Times have certainly changed though. Given that the projected surplus of EM-trained docs by the end of this decade will be more than 2x higher than the number of neurosurgeons in the US (yes, the # of jobless EM docs alone will be >2x higher than all the brain surgeons we have), it absolutely makes sense from the patient-safety perspective to adjust the requirements to make sure we only produce extremely well-trained EM docs going forward.
Here's a list of the ACGME's current EM RRC members:
Maybe a good starting point, and potentially low hanging fruit, would be for people to take a look and see if they know any of these folks well enough to grab a coffee/beer with them. You could ask their rationale for how they determine the residency accreditation criteria, what they think of the current EM workforce situation, and if they think it makes sense to set the bar higher for new/continuing program accreditation since many EM residents in the near-future will be more likely to obtain unemployment benefits following graduation rather than a full time EM job.
I opened your link and realized my residency Junior is a member 😂 maybe i should send her a fb msg and be like "what the hell?!!!?"