ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2025
Program Director Perspectives on the Impact of the Proposed 48-Month Emergency Medicine Residency Requirement: A National Survey.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn early 2025, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) announced proposed revisions to emergency medicine (EM) residency training to include substantial changes to the length of training programs, required rotations, and structured experiences. To date, no published national survey has sought to determine how these changes would impact individual programs.
methodsOver a three-week period in April 2025, we anonymously surveyed program directors or their designees online through the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine listserv. Survey respondents were asked about the impact the changes would have on their programs and their overall opinions of the proposed 48-month minimum requirement.
resultsA total of 86 program directors responded to the survey (response rate of 29.9%) with representative samples from current three-year (83.7%, 72/86) and four-year (16.3%, 14/86) programs. Most program directors reported that they would have to make significant revisions in either structured experiences, required rotations, or both. Most survey respondents from three-year programs (52/72) do not support the proposed changes, whereas all respondents from four-year programs (14/14) do support the changes (P<.001).
conclusionProposed program requirements may require modifications in both three- and four-year programs; 33 of the 86 program directors surveyed reported that would need more than one year to meet the requirements, if adopted. This raises the concern that programs may not be prepared to implement the revisions within the proposed timeline, potentially impacting resident education and the future EM workforce. The ACGME should consider a staged rollout of requirements to allow them to be thoughtfully implemented in a meaningful way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.