• David I Beran and Jennifer Avegno.
• Department of Medicine, Section of Emergency Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, 2020 Gravier St, 7th Floor, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA. david.i.beran@gmail.com.
• Int J Emerg Med. 2013 Jan 1;6(1):10.

BackgroundThe number of international emergency medicine (IEM) fellowships available in the US has grown dramatically since the inception of subspecialty training in 1994 Bayram et al. (Acad Emerg Med 17:748-757, 2010). These fellowships vary according to their curricular structure, intensity of fellow exposure and requirements for program completion. The variety of fellowship structures may have negative connotations for graduates from its fellowships and reflect upon the translatability of their skill sets.The recent article "Core Curricular Elements for International Emergency Medicine Fellowships" Alagappan and Holliman (Emerg Med Clin 23(1):1-10, 2005) was designed as a curricular development tool and enumerates seven foci within the broad field of IEM.ObjectivesThe authors of this article describe their experience using this curriculum development tool. Individual experiences in each of the seven categories described in the "Core Curricular Elements" article were identified and undertaken within the typical 2-year training period.DiscussionA curricular structure is described that integrates exposure to all seven areas along with the Master's of Public Health (MPH) degree, the clinical component and the academic component thematic to existing fellowships. Benefits of this curriculum include increased exposure to multiple areas of IEM, potential for greater standardization and increased translatability of skill set. Disadvantages include superficial exposure to areas of IEM and potentially decreased travel time.ConclusionThe result is a plausible curriculum where fellows would gain exposure to more areas of IEM than they may have otherwise while still earning their MPH, working clinical shifts and carrying out academic fellowship requirements. The authors conclude that this structure allows fellowships to continue drawing on their strengths, provides a more well-rounded fellowship experience and increases structure without requiring standardization.

3 keywords...

hide…