| Literature DB >> 30820376 |
Alice A Min1, Jaime Jordan2, Anand Swaminathan3, Jacob Hennings4, Andrew Grock2.
Abstract
The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Approved Instructional Resources (AIR) series and Approved Instruction Resources Professional (AIR-Pro) series were created in 2014 and 2015, respectively, to address the need for the curation of online educational content as well as a nationally available curriculum that meets individualized interactive instruction criteria. These two programs identify high-quality educational blog and podcast content using an expert-based approach. The AIR series is a continuously building curriculum originally based on the Council of Emergency Medicine Directors (CORD) testing schedule. Using the ALiEM AIR scoring instrument, 49 blog posts and podcasts relevant to renal and genitourinary emergencies published within the previous 12 months were evaluated by eight attending physicians. We summarize the 13 posts that met our a priori determined quality criteria per evaluation by the reviewers. The ALiEM Blog and Podcast Watch series identifies high-quality educational blogs and podcasts for emergency medicine clinicians through its expert panel, using a validated scoring instrument. While this article focuses on renal and genitourinary emergencies, additional AIR modules address other topics in emergency medicine. The AIR and AIR-Pro series provide post-publication accreditation and curation of recent online content to identify and recommend high-quality educational social media content for the EM clinician.Entities:
Keywords: blog posts; emergency medicine; medical education; podcasts
Year: 2018 PMID: 30820376 PMCID: PMC6388816 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.3756
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Approved Instructional Resources scoring instrument for blog and podcast content with the maximum score being 35 points.
(BEEM = Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine; EP = emergency physician; EBM = Evidence-Based Medicine)
| Tier 1: BEEM Rater Scale | Score | Tier 2: Content accuracy | Score | Tier 3: Educational Utility | Score | Tier 4: Evidence- Based Medicine | Score | Tier 5: Referenced | Score |
| Assuming that the results of this article are valid, how much does this article impact on EM clinical practice? | Do you have any concerns about the accuracy of the data presented or conclusions of this article? | Are there useful educational pearls in this article for senior residents? | Does this article reflect evidence-based medicine (EBM)? | Are the authors and literature clearly cited? | |||||
| Useless information | 1 | Yes, many concerns from many inaccuracies | 1 | Not required knowledge for a competent EP | 1 | Not EBM based, only expert opinion | 1 | No | 1 |
| Not really interesting, not really new, changes nothing | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Interesting and new, but doesn't change practice | 3 | Yes, a major concern about few inaccuracies | 3 | Yes, but there are only a few (1-2) educational pearls that will make the EP a better practitioner to know or multiple (>=3) educational pearls that are interesting or potentially useful, but rarely required or helpful for the daily practice of an EP. | 3 | Minimally EBM based | 3 | 3 | |
| Interesting and new, has the potential to change practice | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Yes, authors and general references are listed (but no in-line references) | 4 | |||
| New and important: this would probably change practice for some EPs | 5 | Minimal concerns over minor inaccuracies | 5 | Yes, there are several (>=3) educational pearls that will make the EP a better practitioner to know, or a few (1-2) every competent EP must know in their practice | 5 | Mostly EBM based | 5 | 5 | |
| New and important: this would change practice for most EPs | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||
| This is a "must know" for EPs | 7 | No concerns over inaccuracies | 7 | Yes, there are multiple educational pearls that every competent EP must know in their practice | 7 | Yes exclusively EBM based | 7 | Yes, authors and in-line references are provided | 7 |