# Understanding What Emergency Medicine (EM) Faculty Want: Preferences for Content and Delivery of Faculty-Focused Departmental Education

## TL;DR

This study explores what emergency medicine faculty want in terms of educational content and delivery methods to improve departmental education.

## Contribution

The study identifies specific preferences and barriers for EM faculty in attending educational sessions, offering actionable insights for improving faculty development programs.

## Key findings

- Lectures are the most preferred format for faculty education, followed by hands-on and interactive sessions.
- Clinical duties are the biggest barrier to attending educational sessions, followed by scheduling conflicts.
- Faculty prefer content on procedural skills, critical care, and academic development.

## Abstract

Background

Methods for ongoing faculty education in academic emergency medicine (EM) have evolved over the years. In addition to traditional in-person lectures or grand rounds, education may be supplemented by online or asynchronous content. The preferences of EM physicians for faculty education content and format are not well understood. We sought to determine barriers and facilitating factors for EM faculty to participate in educational sessions and/or content, as well as faculty preferences on subject matter, content delivery methods, and personnel.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional survey of EM faculty physicians from 18 US academic medical centers. Survey invitations were delivered by a site representative at each institution using a Qualtrics survey instrument (Qualtrics, Provo, US). Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics via percentiles. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

A total of 230 individuals from 18 academic departments across the US responded to the survey. Clinical experience ranged from 0-5 years (25%) to 21+ years (20%). Lectures were the most preferred format, cited by 90% of participants, followed by hands-on sessions (66%), interactive sessions (47%), and journal clubs (46%). A hybrid format (virtual + in-person) was the most desired delivery format as well as the most common delivery method. Faculty considered clinical duties as the greatest barrier to attending grand rounds (55%), followed by conflicts with appointments/meetings (51%) and uninteresting topics or content (17%). Faculty preferred more content on procedural skills or hands-on training, critical care/resuscitation, and academic development/teaching techniques.

Conclusions

Faculty development opportunities are important for physicians to maintain and grow their skills and knowledge. However, there are many barriers and competing priorities to attendance. Faculty were most motivated to attend based on the topic and the speaker’s skill and reputation. They also valued hybrid and asynchronous options to allow attendance around other clinical and academic duties. Organizers of grand rounds sessions should consider their faculty’s particular needs, interests, and motivations to plan more valuable programming and maximize engagement.