We evaluated the effectiveness of text messaging versus email, as a delivery method to enhance knowledge retention of emergency medicine (EM) content in EM residents. We performed a multi-centered, prospective, randomized study consisting of postgraduate year (PGY) 1 to PGY 3 & 4 residents in three United States EM residency programs in 2014. Fifty eight residents were randomized into one delivery group: text message or email. Participants completed a 40 question pre- and post-intervention exam. Primary outcomes were the means of pre- and post-intervention exam score differences. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired t-test, and multiple linear regressions. No significant difference was found between the primary outcomes of the two groups (P=0.51). PGY 2 status had a significant negative effect (P=0.01) on predicted exam score difference. Neither delivery method enhanced resident knowledge retention. Further research on implementation of mobile technology in residency education is required.
Education ; Electronic Mail* ; Emergencies* ; Emergency Medicine* ; Internship and Residency ; Linear Models ; Methods ; Prospective Studies ; Text Messaging* ; United States*

BACKGROUND: Recent findings on emergency department (ED) patient experience surveys and concerns for the low response rates challenge the quality and reliability of the survey reports. We assessed the consistency of an ED patient experience survey report and identified the effects of patient demographics on ED patient experiences. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study at a university-based ED from July to December 2017. We obtained ED patient experience scores from an institutional version (IS) survey and the Press Ganey Associates-distributed survey (PGA). We compared top box scores from the two reports using frequency analysis and performed multivariable logistic regressions to identify associations between IS patient demographics and scores. RESULTS: We obtained 289 PGA and 234 IS responses. The IS reported significant, higher top box scores in doctor-specific patient questions compared to PGA (all four P-values < 0.01). Female, Christian and White patients were more likely to give top box scores (OR 3.07, OR 2.22 and OR 2.41, P-value < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION We found significant differences in ED patient experience scores between the IS and PGA surveys. We recommend that healthcare providers consider patient demographic variables when interpreting ED experience score reports. Multiple survey techniques and distribution methods may be adopted to best capture ED patient experiences.