# Emergency Medicine Scholarly Tracks: A Mixed- methods Study of Faculty and Resident Experiences

## TL;DR

This study explores how emergency medicine scholarly tracks affect faculty and residents, finding positive impacts on mentorship and career development with few barriers.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into the impact of emergency medicine scholarly tracks on mentorship and career outcomes, highlighting benefits and challenges.

## Key findings

- Most participants reported a positive impact on mentorship from scholarly tracks.
- The most common reason for track selection was interest in a clinical area.
- Faculty noted increased one-on-one time with residents and specialization opportunities.

## Abstract

Emergency medicine (EM) scholarly tracks have been adopted for increased subspecialty exposure and training. However, current literature fails to elucidate the impact on faculty and resident careers and resident and faculty engagement opportunities or demonstrate barriers to continuation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceived impact of EM scholarly tracks on participating faculty (eg, resident interaction/mentorship, career satisfaction, perceived barriers to implementation) and recent graduates (eg, faculty mentorship, reasons for track selection, perceived barriers to continuation).

This mixed-methods study includes a cross-sectional quantitative survey with 30 EM residents (who graduated between 2021–2023) and semi-structured, one-hour qualitative interviews with six faculty in a large, tertiary-care academic medical center with a university-based hospital and medical school. We conducted frequency analyses on demographics, timing of tracks, mentorship impact, and implementation barriers. Chi-square analyses were used to compare the most and least common reasons for track selection. We evaluated faculty data in a program evaluation framework, seeking commonalities and idiosyncratic experiences.

Most participants pursued either academic or hybrid academic/community careers (18/30). Additionally, most participants reported a positive impact on mentorship (25/30). The most common reason for choosing a track was “area of clinical interest” (mean 2.93, P <.001). The least common reason was “lowest effort/amount of work” (mean 1.47, P<.05) when compared to half of the other choices. Most residents did not report barriers to track continuation.

Faculty frequently discussed how resident scholarly tracks led to increased one-on-one faculty: resident time. Additionally, they reported the opportunity for specialization of residents not seeking fellowships. A reported barrier to continuation of and resident engagement in tracks was the balance needed between teaching enough and over-teaching, which can discourage learner interest.

Recent EM graduates and current faculty members participating in scholarly tracks reported a positive impact on engagement and mentorship with minimal reported barriers to implementation and continuation. Scholarly tracks may offer more than educational benefits to participants, including individualized mentorship and career guidance.