Towards developing a consensus assessment framework for global emergency medicine fellowships

dc.contributor.authorJahn, Haiko Kurten_ZA
dc.contributor.authorKwan, Jamesen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorO’Reilly, Gerarden_ZA
dc.contributor.authorGeduld, Heikeen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorDouglass, Katherineen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorTenner, Andreaen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorWallis, Leeen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorTupesis, Janisen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorMowafi, Hani O.en_ZA
dc.identifier.citationJahn, H. K., et al. 2019. Towards developing a consensus assessment framework for global emergency medicine fellowships. BMC Emergency Medicine,19:68, doi:10.1186/s12873-019-0286-6
dc.identifier.issn1471-227X (online)
dc.descriptionCITATION: Jahn, H. K., et al. 2019. Towards developing a consensus assessment framework for global emergency medicine fellowships. BMC Emergency Medicine,19:68, doi:10.1186/s12873-019-0286-6.
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at
dc.description.abstractBackground: The number of Global Emergency Medicine (GEM) Fellowship training programs are increasing worldwide. Despite the increasing number of GEM fellowships, there is not an agreed upon approach for assessment of GEM trainees. Main body: In order to study the lack of standardized assessment in GEM fellowship training, a working group was established between the International EM Fellowship Consortium (IEMFC) and the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM). A needs assessment survey of IEMFC members and a review were undertaken to identify assessment tools currently in use by GEM fellowship programs; what relevant frameworks exist; and common elements used by programs with a wide diversity of emphases. A consensus framework was developed through iterative working group discussions. Thirty-two of 40 GEM fellowships responded (80% response). There is variability in the use and format of formal assessment between programs. Thirty programs reported training GEM fellows in the last 3 years (94%). Eighteen (56%) reported only informal assessments of trainees. Twenty-seven (84%) reported regular meetings for assessment of trainees. Eleven (34%) reported use of a structured assessment of any sort for GEM fellows and, of these, only 2 (18%) used validated instruments modified from general EM residency assessment tools. Only 3 (27%) programs reported incorporation of formal written feedback from partners in other countries. Using these results along with a review of the available assessment tools in GEM the working group developed a set of principles to guide GEM fellowship assessments along with a sample assessment for use by GEM fellowship programs seeking to create their own customized assessments. Conclusion: There are currently no widely used assessment frameworks for GEM fellowship training. The working group made recommendations for developing standardized assessments aligned with competencies defined by the programs, that characterize goals and objectives of training, and document progress of trainees towards achieving those goals. Frameworks used should include perspectives of multiple stakeholders including partners in other countries where trainees conduct field work. Future work may evaluate the usability, validity and reliability of assessment frameworks in GEM fellowship training. Keywords: Global emergency medicine, Global health, Assessment, Curriculum, Evaluation, Medical education, Postgraduate medical education, Fellowships
dc.format.extent11 pages
dc.publisherBMC (part of Springer Nature)
dc.subjectEmergency medical personnel -- Scholarships, fellowships, etc.
dc.subjectEmergency medicine -- Scholarships, fellowships, etc.en_ZA
dc.subjectEmergency medicine -- Practiceen_ZA
dc.titleTowards developing a consensus assessment framework for global emergency medicine fellowshipsen_ZA
dc.description.versionPublisher's version
dc.rights.holderAuthors retain copyright

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)