About Michelle Lin, MD

ALiEM Founder and CEO
Professor and Digital Innovation Lab Director
Department of Emergency Medicine
University of California, San Francisco

Who Gets Mistriaged? Disparities in Pediatric Behavioral Health ED Triage | A PECARN multicenter analysis

mistriaging of pediatric mental health conditions with ESI
A 14-year-old Hispanic girl presents to the Emergency Department with her mother for suicidal ideation after a conflict at home. The girl is quiet and cooperative. Her mother, who speaks primarily Spanish, is trying to explain the situation. The nurse assigns an ESI level 2, the same score given to nearly every child who walks through the door with a behavioral health complaint. But does that score accurately capture this patient’s needs?

A new multicenter PECARN study published this week in JAMA Network Open takes a close look at triage accuracy for pediatric behavioral health ED visits. The findings: mistriaging errors are common, and they are not equally distributed [1].

Hoffmann et al. analyzed 78,411 ED visits by children aged 5 to 17 with behavioral health chief concerns across 15 PECARN Registry EDs from 2021 to 2023 [1]. They classified each visit as appropriately triaged, overtriaged, or undertriaged using vital signs, Glasgow Coma Scale, pain scores, emergency medication use, resource utilization, and disposition. Of the 74,564 visits with complete data:

  • 57% were overtriaged
  • 34% were appropriately triaged
  • 8.5% were undertriaged

How ESI Handles Behavioral Health

The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) is used in over 90% of US EDs [2]. It sorts patients into 5 acuity levels. Level 1 is for patients needing lifesaving interventions. Level 2 is for high-risk situations, confused patients, or those in severe pain. Levels 3 through 5 are based on anticipated resource needs. In this study, 83.5% of all behavioral health visits were triaged as ESI level 2.

To assess triage accuracy, the authors compared each child’s assigned ESI level against what actually happened during their visit.

Overtriage

Overtriage means a child was assigned a higher acuity score than their clinical course supported. For a child assigned ESI level 2, overtriage was defined as meeting ALL of the following [1]:

  • Stable vital signs within 2 hours of arrival (heart rate and respiratory rate not high risk for age, SpO2 ≥93% or not recorded)
  • Pain score <7 (or not recorded)
  • GCS of 15 (or not recorded)
  • No emergency medications during the visit

In other words, the triage nurse predicted high acuity, but the visit didn’t bear that out.

Undertriage

Undertriage means the opposite: a child was assigned a lower acuity score than their clinical course warranted. For example, a child triaged as ESI level 4 (expected to need 1 resource) who ended up being admitted, needing emergency medications, or using multiple resources. The triage nurse underestimated how sick the child was or how much care they would need.

Undertriage Disproportionately Affects Minority Children and Spanish-Speaking Families

The most concerning equity finding was in undertriage.

After adjusting for clinical and visit characteristics, undertriage was significantly more likely for Hispanic children (AOR 1.46), non-Hispanic Black children (AOR 1.28), and children whose families preferred Spanish (AOR 1.31), all compared to non-Hispanic White and English-speaking patients [1]. The authors point to implicit clinician bias, systemic racism, and underutilization of professional interpreters as likely contributors.

The safety implications are real. Children whose acuity is underestimated may face longer waits, miss time-sensitive interventions, or leave the ED without being seen despite elevated risk.

Overtriage Was Common

More than half of all visits (57%) were overtriaged [1]. These children received a higher acuity triage score than their clinical course supported.

The strongest predictor was age. Children aged 5-9 had over 4-fold higher adjusted odds of overtriage compared to those aged 10-14 (AOR 4.43), possibly because younger children have a limited ability to communicate their symptoms and needs.

To a lesser degree, non-Hispanic Black children also had higher adjusted odds of overtriage compared to non-Hispanic White children (AOR 1.17). The authors cite research on adultification, the tendency to perceive Black youth as older or more threatening than they are, as a potential contributor. This means Black children in this study were more likely to be both undertriaged and overtriaged compared to White children. The errors are not unidirectional. They likely reflect different biases operating at different points in care.

Take Home Points

  1. The ESI has limited ability to differentiate pediatric behavioral health presentations. In this study, 83.5% of behavioral health visits were triaged as ESI level 2.
  2. UNDERTRIAGE was more likely for Hispanic children (AOR 1.46), non-Hispanic Black children (AOR 1.28), and Spanish-speaking families (AOR 1.31), raising concerns about missed acuity in these groups.
  3. OVERTRIAGE occurred in 57% of visits, driven most strongly by younger age (AOR 4.43 for ages 5 to 9) and to a lesser degree by non-Hispanic Black race (AOR 1.17).

References

  1. Hoffmann JA, Foster AA, Rojas CR, et al. Overtriage and undertriage of children presenting to the emergency department for behavioral health. JAMA Netw Open. 2026;9(3):e263042. Full text
  2. McHugh M, Tanabe P, McClelland M, Khare RK. More patients are triaged using the Emergency Severity Index than any other triage acuity system in the United States. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(1):106-109. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01240.x
By |2026-03-28T19:43:20-07:00Mar 28, 2026|Pediatrics, Psychiatry|

EM Match Advice 50: Making Your Rank List | Program Directors Share Their Best Advice

EM Match Advice 50: Making Rank List

With interview season behind you, it’s time for one of the most important decisions of your medical career: creating your rank list. In this episode of ALiEM Match Advice, host Dr. Sara Krzyzaniak (Stanford EM Program Director) sits down with Dr. Elaine Rabin (Mount Sinai Hospital, Elmhurst Program) and Dr. Miriam Kulkarni (St. John’s Riverside Hospital) to discuss what really matters when ranking programs—and what doesn’t.

Key Dates to Remember

  • February 2, 2026: Rank list entry opens on NRMP
  • March 4, 2026: Rank list certification deadline (same for programs and applicants)
  • March 16, 2026: Match status notification
  • March 20, 2026: Match Day

Behind the Scenes: What Are Programs Doing Right Now?

While you’re making your rank list, program directors are finalizing theirs too. Dr. Kulkarni and Dr. Rabin pull back the curtain on what’s happening on their end—and share an important perspective about what your rank position actually means once you match.

What Should Drive Your Decisions?

The 3 program directors discuss the factors that truly matter:

  • Why you should “wipe the slate clean” from your pre-interview expectations
  • The one question Dr. Kulkarni says is most important: “What do you need to get through something really hard?”
  • Why “County vs. Academic vs. Community” labels might be misleading you
  • How to think about imperfection—because no program has everything

Plus: Dr. Krzyzaniak introduces her “brown patches of grass” framework for evaluating programs.

What Doesn’t Matter (But Feels Like It Does)

Learn why you should be skeptical of:

  • Anonymous online forums and match spreadsheets
  • Flashy interview day presentations
  • Minor perks and small salary differences

Dr. Rabin shares a personal story about getting “wooed” during her own rank list process—and what she learned from it.

Practical Tips for the Next Few Weeks

The episode includes concrete advice on:

  • Where to post your rank list (yes, literally post it somewhere!)
  • Who to talk to—and when recent graduate advice might be outdated
  • How to know if you’re overthinking two programs
  • What to do if your gut keeps pulling you toward a different choice

The Letter of Intent Question

Do letters of intent actually matter? All 3 program directors weigh in with surprisingly consistent advice—including the one absolute rule you must follow if you decide to send one.

Ready for Match Day

Whether you’re confident about your top choice or still sorting through your options, this episode offers honest insights from program directors who want you to succeed. Listen for the full conversation, including personal stories and nuanced advice that goes beyond what we can capture in a blog post.

Podcast: Making Your Rank List

Read and Listen to the Other EM Match Advice Episodes

Blog posts: https://www.aliem.com/em-match-advice-series/

 

By |2026-01-27T03:49:23-08:00Jan 28, 2026|EM Match Advice, Medical Student|

Education Theory Made Practical: All 8 Volumes Free

Education Theory Made practical all 8 books displayed

After eight years, 240 faculty members, and countless Slack conversations across time zones, the ALiEM Faculty Incubator has come to a close. And with it, we’re celebrating the completion of something I’m incredibly proud to share: the Education Theory Made Practical book series—8 volumes, 77 educational theories and frameworks, now freely available to educators worldwide [download at ALiEM Library].

We became victims of our own success. The mentors and community members we nurtured? They’re now department chairs, deans, and program directors. The people we brought into our sandbox are now making the big decisions and shaping the future of health professions education.

This is both an ending and a celebration.

Celebrating the Final Three Volumes

These final 3 volumes—published together in January 2026—represent the culmination of everything we learned over 8 years of the Faculty Incubator.

Volume 6 covers essential teaching methods and frameworks: Peyton’s Procedural Skills Training, Backward Design Approach, Interleaving, Growth Mindset Theory, Competence by Design (Rx-OCR Coaching Method), Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, PEARLS Debriefing Framework, Learning Conversations, Deliberately Developmental Organizations & Critical Pedagogy, Actor-Network Theory. Dr. Lauren Maggio’s foreword emphasizes how open access removes barriers, ensuring educators worldwide can freely benefit from these insights.

Volume 7 progresses through the natural stages of educational program development—from instructional design (ADDIE Model, Technology Acceptance Model) through learning methodology (Advocacy Inquiry, Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice) to assessment (Messick’s Validity Framework, Learning Analytics and Learning Curves) and program evaluation (CIPP Model, Moore’s Evaluation Framework), concluding with education sociology (Nivet’s Diversity Framework) and research (Glassick’s Criteria for Scholarship). Dr. Martin Pusic’s foreword challenges us to see the relationship between theory and practice as a two-way street—practice doesn’t just apply theory, it generates and refines it.

Volume 8 tackles contemporary frameworks essential for today’s educators: Connectivism for understanding learning in our networked digital age, Appreciative Inquiry for organizational change, Bruner’s Spiral Curriculum and Tyler Model for curriculum development, Intersectionality for understanding complex identities, Resonant Leadership, and the Master Adaptive Learner model for lifelong learning. Dr. Teresa Chan and Dr. Michael Gottlieb’s joint foreword reflects on how this series became a model for creating accessible, impactful educational resources, while my own foreword celebrates the community we built and the leaders we nurtured.

How We Got Here: The Origin Story

Back in 2016, Dr. Teresa Chan, Dr. Michael Gottlieb, Dr. Lainie Yarris, and I were dreaming up something that hadn’t been done before. We’d seen the power of virtual community with our Chief Resident Incubator, and we asked ourselves: why do faculty only get to collaborate at conferences once or twice a year? What if you could bounce ideas off a university dean or journal editor over Slack on a Tuesday afternoon, no matter where you lived?

We wanted to create a year-long, longitudinal, experiential incubator where educator-scholars could learn and grow together. Teresa, Michael, and Lainie entrusted me with their time and expertise to build something entirely new. I’m forever grateful for their partnership in creating what became a transformative experience for hundreds of educators.

As our first cohort came together, we faced a challenge: these amazing, motivated educators needed to demonstrate scholarship and national reach for academic promotion. The traditional path? Publishers hold the keys. Established scholars extend the invitations. There’s an unspoken expectation to gain experience before earning certain opportunities.

We asked: what if we created those opportunities ourselves?

That’s how the Education Theory Made Practical series was born. Our philosophy at ALiEM and the Faculty Incubator has always been to encourage autonomy and agency. We could learn while doing—writing a book together. ALiEM could provide a global platform and ISBN codes. We didn’t need to wait for traditional gatekeepers to give us permission to publish and educate.

The first volume launched in August 2017. Now, 8 volumes later, we have a complete library.

The Complete Library: Eight Volumes of Practical Wisdom

These final 3 volumes complete a comprehensive library that spans the breadth of health professions education. Each volume follows the same thoughtful structure: real-world cases that educators face, in-depth exploration of educational theories and frameworks, practical applications, and annotated bibliographies for deeper learning. The format is digestible, practical, and thought-provoking—grounded in science but written for the realities of clinical teaching.

The editors and authors across all eight volumes? A who’s who of all-stars in the medical education world. But here’s what I’m most proud of: many of them weren’t “all-stars” when they started. They were talented educators looking for community, mentorship, and opportunity. We gave them a sandbox to play in, and they redefined what was possible.

Volumes 1-5 laid the foundation with 50 essential frameworks:

  • Volume 1 (August 2017) explores critical perspectives and foundational approaches: Banking Theory, Constructive Alignment, IDEO’s Design Thinking Framework, R2C2 Model for Feedback, Feminist Theory, Sociomaterialism, Logic Model of Program Evaluation, Situated Cognition, Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning Theory, Sociocultural Theory
  • Volume 2 (November 2018) examines cognitive and social dimensions of learning: Modal Model of Memory, Naturalistic Decision Making, Communities of Practice, Emotional Intelligence, Social Constructivism, Reflective Practice, Self-Directed Learning, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Dual-Process Reasoning, Gaming and Gamification
  • Volume 3 (October 2020) focuses on curriculum and assessment: Kern’s Model of Curriculum Development, The Kirkpatrick Model, Realist Evaluation, Mastery Learning, Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, Validity, Programmatic Assessment, Self-Assessment Seeking, Bolman & Deal Four-Frame Model, Kotter’s Stages of Change
  • Volume 4 (February 2022) delves into learning psychology and competence: Cognitive Load Theory, Epstein’s Mindful Practitioner, Joplin’s Five-Stage Model of Experiential Learning, Kolb’s Experiential Learning, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Miller’s Pyramid of Assessing Clinical Competence, Multiple Resource Theory, Prototype Theory, Self-Regulated Learning, Siu and Reiter’s TAU Approach
  • Volume 5 (February 2022) explores adaptive learning and development: Action Learning, Digital Natives, Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition, Organizational Learning, Self-Determination Theory, Spaced Repetition Theory, Zone of Proximal Development, Transformative Learning Theory, Deliberate Practice Theory, Constructive Developmental Framework

77 theories and frameworks over 8 volumes. Hundreds of authors and editors. All freely accessible.

Be Free to Learn

These chapters have been used in faculty development courses worldwide, including programs such as the Harvard Macy Institute. But impact isn’t measured just in prestigious adoptions—it’s measured in accessibility.

Every volume is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license. This means any educator who wants to learn can learn. No paywalls. No institutional access required. No barriers.

“Be free to learn”—we firmly believe in it.

I wish a resource like this had existed when I was developing as an educator-scholar. Something digestible that connected theory to practice. Something that didn’t require a PhD to understand but was still rigorous and evidence-based. Something that made me feel less alone in figuring out this whole “teaching” thing.

That’s what we built. For you. For everyone.

What Happens Now?

The formal Incubator ended in 2024, but look around. Our community members are still collaborating, still supporting each other, still changing how education works at their institutions. That spirit of building, sharing, and learning together—that willingness to put your work out there and learn from each other—that’s the legacy.

We hope we instilled a sense of agency, validation (because imposter syndrome is real no matter how much you’ve accomplished), and the importance of community. These 8 volumes stand as proof that you don’t need to wait for traditional pathways to make a difference.

Download the Complete Library

All eight volumes are available now in the ALiEM Library.

Download them. Share them with colleagues. Use them in your faculty development programs. Assign them to your trainees. Build on what we started.

And if you’re feeling that spark of “I wish I could do something like this”—do it. Don’t wait. Find your people. Build something meaningful together.

Thank you to everyone who made this journey possible—every founding leader, every editor, every author, every Incubator member. You didn’t just join our community; you built it.

Here’s to eight incredible years and a story that’s still being written.

By |2026-02-12T05:32:34-08:00Jan 27, 2026|Academic, Faculty Incubator, Medical Education|

Gamechanger: Do we really need a lumbar puncture for all febrile infants 0-28 days old?

PECARN febrile infant rule age 0-28 days

A new international pooled analysis challenges the age-old dogma that all febrile infants 0-28 days require a lumbar puncture (LP). Can the PECARN febrile infant prediction rule safely identify a low-risk subset for invasive bacterial illnesses (bacterial meningitis and bacteremia) [1]?

Bottom Line

For more than  four decades, the standard of care for febrile infants in the first month of life has been aggressive: full sepsis workup (including an LP), admission, and IV antibiotics. A new study in JAMA suggests this paradigm may be shifting [2, 3].

  • In an international pooled analysis of more than  1,500 febrile infants aged ≤28 days, the updated PECARN febrile infant prediction rule missed zero cases of bacterial meningitis.
  • Inclusion Criteria: Non-ill-appearing, full time (≥37 weeks) infants aged 0–28 days with fever (≥38.0°C), who underwent blood and urine testing including procalcitonin (PCT).
  • Exclusion Criteria: Critically ill appearance, prematurity, comorbidities, or antibiotic use in preceding days.
  • Implication: Cerebrospinal fluid analysis is unnecessary for a subset of non-ill-appearing febrile infants ≤28 days old.
  • What now? The current data provides a solid, practice-changing, evidence-based foundation for a shared decision-making conversation that wasn’t possible before.

Study

To answer this question, the authors performed 2 distinct analyses:

  1. Primary Analysis (The “External” Test): To test the rule’s validity in new, diverse populations, the primary analysis pooled data from 4 prospective international cohort studies (Canada, Spain, Europe, UK/Ireland).
    • Population: 1,537 non-ill-appearing, full-term (≥37 weeks) infants aged 0–28 days with fever (≥38C)
    • Why no US data? This was done to validate the PECARN rule externally, avoiding the bias of testing it on the same US population from which it was derived.
  1. Secondary Analysis (The “Maximize Power” Test): To generate the most precise safety estimates possible, the authors then pooled the 4 international cohorts PLUS the 2 original US-based PECARN cohorts.
    • Population: 2,531 infants total
    • Result: Even with the added US data, the rule missed zero cases of bacterial meningitis.

What is the updated PECARN febrile infant prediction?

An infant ≤28 days old is low risk if they meet all 3 criteria:

  1. Urinalysis: Negative
  2. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC): ≤4,000/mm3
  3. Serum procalcitonin: ≤0.5 ng/mL

The Findings

The prevalence of Invasive Bacterial Infections (IBI) in all studied patients was 4.5%.

  • 3.8% bacteremia
  • 0.7% meningitis

Performance of the PECARN Rule

MetricPrimary Analysis of 4 International Cohorts (95% CI)Secondary Analysis of 4 International + 2 US PECARN Cohorts (95% CI)
Total Infants1,5372,531
Classified as “Low Risk”632 (41.1%)1,079 (42.6%)
Sensitivity94.2%
(85.6–97.8%)
94.8%
(88.1–97.8%)
Specificity41.6%
(36.7–46.7%)
43.3%
(38.7–48.0%)
Negative Predictive Value (NPV)99.4%
(98.1–99.8%)
99.6%
(98.7–99.9%)
Positive Predictive Value (PPV)6.9% ( 4.8–9.9%)6.1%
(4.5–8.2%)
Missed Meningitis Cases0 (out of 11 cases)0 (out of 22 cases)
Missed Bacteremia Cases4 (5.8% of IBI cases)5 (5.3% of IBI cases)

Number needed to tap calculation

One of the most compelling arguments for using this rule is the statistical trade-off required to find a single missed case. The authors provide estimated Negative Predictive Values (NPV) across a range of disease prevalences.

If we assume a 1.00% prevalence of bacterial meningitis (which is conservative; the study observed 0.7%), the NPV for bacterial meningitis is 99.95% [2].

This means that for every 10,000 PECARN low-risk infants, 9,995 do not have bacterial meningitis, and 5 might. We can translate this into a “Number Needed to Tap” (NNT) to find one missed case:

  • Risk of Missed Case = 1 – 0.9995 = 0.0005
  • NNT = 1 / 0.0005 = 2000

Bottom Line: You would hypothetically need to perform 2,000 lumbar punctures on low-risk infants to find ONE case of bacterial meningitis that the rule missed.

Important guardrails: Who is this rule for?

Before applying these findings, we need to understand the strict inclusion criteria. This study—and the PECARN rule itself—was only validated on a specific population.

The “Must-Have” Checklist:

  • Non-ill-Appearing: The infant cannot appear ill. The study defined this strictly, excluding infants with abnormal appearance, work of breathing, or circulation findings (often using the Pediatric Assessment Triangle or other illness indicators). If the baby looks sick, the rule does not apply.
  • Full-Term: Infants must be ≥37 weeks gestation. Preterm infants have different immunological risks and were excluded.
  • Age 0–28 Days: This specific analysis focused exclusively on the first 28 days of life.
  • ✅ Proven Fever: Documented temperature ≥38C

The SBI vs. IBI distinction

If you are already using the PECARN rule for older infants (29–60 days), you likely use it to rule out Serious Bacterial Infections (SBIs), which includes urinary tract infections (UTIs) [1].

This study is different – it focused purely on invasive bacterial infections (IBIs), which is defined as bacteremia and/or bacterial meningitis.

What did the PECARN rule miss?

The rule had perfect sensitivity for bacterial meningitis, but it did miss 5 cases of bacteremia out of more than 2,500 infants ≤28 days old despite a low-risk stratification. Let’s look at the 5 cases classified as “missed bacteremia:

  • 1 case: H. influenzae bacteremia
  • 1 case: E. coli bacteremia (without UTI)
  • 1 case: E. coli bacteremia (with E. coli UTI)
  • 2 cases: S. aureus bacteremia (One of these also had a concurrent E. coli UTI).

The authors note that S. aureus in blood cultures can be a contaminant rather than a true pathogen. If these S. aureus cases were indeed contaminants, the true sensitivity of the rule would be even higher than reported.

Notably, all 5 cases of missed bacteremia occurred in infants aged 8-21 days. There were 0 missed bacteremia cases in the 22-28 day age group.

How do we reconcile this with the most current 2021 AAP guidelines?

To understand why this study is a big deal, we have to look at what the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines currently tells us to do. The new data exposes a potential practice shift specifically for infants in the third week of life (8–21 days).

Age GroupCurrent AAP Guidelines (2021)New PECARN Data (2025)Bottom Line for Practice
0–7 Days

Excluded

Standard of care is full sepsis workup (including LP), IV antibiotics, and admission.

Technically Included

Rule missed 0 cases of IBI in this age group, but sample size was smaller (~15% of cohort).

No Change

Due to perinatal risks and smaller sample sizes, the full sepsis workup remains a safe standard of care.

8–21 Days

Action: Routine LP required

Strategy: Full sepsis workup (including LP), IV antibiotics, and admission

Reasoning: Previously considered insufficient data

Potential to Defer LP

Meningitis: 0 missed cases

Bacteremia: 5 missed cases (all occurred in the 8–21 day window).

Nuance: High sensitivity for meningitis challenges the mandatory LP rule, but missed bacteremia warrants caution.

Proceed with Caution

While you might safely skip the LP (since 0 infants with bacterial meningitis were missed), the risk of missed bacteremia suggests these infants still require close monitoring. A reasonable approach for a well-appearing infant with normal inflammatory markers and urinalysis might be to skip the LP, give no antibiotics, but still hospitalize for observation.

22–28 Days

Action: Risk stratify

Strategy: Defer LP if inflammatory markers are normal.

Reasoning: Biomarkers considered reliable risk stratification tools for meningitis.

Evidence to Defer LP

Meningitis: 0 missed cases

Bacteremia: 0 missed cases

Strong Validation

This study supports the AAP’s existing recommendation: Skip the LP if all the PECARN criteria (UA, ANC, PCT) are negative, but admit for observation.

Additional Considerations

  1. Procalcitonin is mandatory: This rule relies on serum procalcitonin. If your facility only uses CRP and WBC, you cannot use this reduction strategy safely.
  1. Consider herpes simplex virus (HSV) meningoencephalitis: This PECARN rule is to identify young febrile infants with bacterial infections and not HSV. You thus must still risk-stratify for HSV separately (seizures, vesicles, maternal history, etc) and perform a LP if HSV is suspected, independent of the PECARN prediction rule.

Summary

For the first time, we have high-quality, multi-national data suggesting that a routine LP may not be necessary for every febrile infant ≤28 days old. While guidelines have not officially changed, this study provides the evidence needed to support shared decision-making with caregivers.

We can now honestly tell parents: “Based on these blood and urine tests, the chance of your baby having bacterial meningitis is extremely low—likely less than 1 in 2,000. We can safely hold off on the spinal tap and antibiotics right now and admit for observation.”

That is a conversation we couldn’t have yesterday.

References

  1. Kuppermann N, Dayan PS, Levine DA, et al; Febrile Infant Working Group of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). A clinical prediction rule to identify febrile infants 60 days and younger at low risk for serious bacterial infections. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(4):342-351. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5501. PMID 30776077
  2. Burstein B, Waterfield T, Umana E, Xie J, Kuppermann N. Prediction of Bacteremia and Bacterial Meningitis Among Febrile Infants Aged 28 Days or Younger. JAMA. Published online December 8, 2025. doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.21454
  3. Searns JB, O’Leary ST. Moving the Field Forward to Safely Do Less With Febrile Neonates. JAMA. Published online December 8, 2025. doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.23133
  4. Pantell RH, Roberts KB, Adams WG, et al; Subcommittee on Febrile Infants. Evaluation and management of well-appearing febrile infants 8 to 60 days old. Pediatrics. 2021;148(2):e2021052228. PMID 34281996

When Research Meets Social Media Expertise: Lessons from the PECARN-ALiEM Partnership

PECARN - ALiEM partnership twitter X
From Pipe Dream to Proven Strategy: How a 4-year partnership between PECARN and ALiEM created a replicable framework for evidence-based research dissemination

Sometimes the best collaborations begin with simple questions. Following Dr. Nathan Kuppermann’s grand rounds presentation in 2018, I had the opportunity to discuss an idea with him as PECARN’s Steering Committee Chair: might there be untapped potential in using social media platforms like Twitter to amplify PECARN’s research impact? Five years later, that initial conversation has grown into a reality with a systematic approach and measurable outcomes.

Social media is not just about fads and marketing. In fact, it represents the foreseeable future for information dissemination, even in scientific research, because it meets learners and providers where they already are. Rather than hoping clinicians would stumble upon publications in traditional journals, we should actively bring the research to the platforms they frequently check.

Why Organizational Social Media Requires Strategic Planning

Organizational social media for research dissemination can’t just “do social media.” This endeavor requires fundamentally different approaches than personal academic accounts. While individual faculty might share insights casually or build personal brands, research organizations need systematic frameworks that ensure consistency, maintain academic rigor, and deliver measurable impact.

The critical distinction: institutional social media isn’t about intuition or viral content—it demands rigorous planning, dedicated resources, and iterative optimization based on analytics. Just as we wouldn’t launch a research study without proper methodology and oversight, we shouldn’t approach organizational research dissemination without strategic frameworks and quality control systems.

The Partnership Model: When Research Meets Social Media Expertise

Our approach began with recognizing a fundamental truth: most research organizations lack the specialized expertise needed for effective social media presence. Rather than building these capabilities from scratch, PECARN partnered with ALiEM, leveraging our existing social media infrastructure and experience. What started as an experimental collaboration became a four-year case study, which we recently published in JMIR Formative Research [1]. We share our processes, outcomes, and lessons learned to provide a replicable framework and roadmap for other research organizations considering similar initiatives on Twitter/X (or alternative social media platforms).

The Foundation: Building Sustainable Infrastructure

Organizational Inputs:

  • Research Organization (PECARN) – content expertise and credibility
  • Social Media Experts (ALiEM) – Twitter/X platform knowledge and audience understanding
  • Funding & Leadership Support – executive champions and resource allocation
  • Technical Infrastructure – analytics tools, scheduling platforms, communication systems

The 5-Person Dream Team:

  • Content Writers (2): Physician-researchers who understand both clinical context and platform constraints
  • Peer Reviewers (2): Quality control experts ensuring academic rigor
  • Account Monitors (2): Daily engagement specialists building community
  • Analytics Manager (1): Data scientist tracking performance and optimization
  • Graphic Designer (1): Visual content specialist (added after 2 years based on data)

We created 2-person teams for key roles to ensure sustainability and backup coverage. Faculty have competing priorities, and redundancy ensures consistent output despite scheduling challenges.

pecarn ALiEM twitter X partnership research dissemination architect

What the Numbers Taught Us

The key to our success wasn’t guesswork—it was rigorous analytics tracking and iterative evidence-based improvement. Over the 4 years (2020-23), 569 tweets were published, 99 PECARN journal publications were featured, and we grew an audience of over 2,000 followers.

Tweet-Level Analytics: The Strategy Elements That Actually Work

Through multiple linear regression analysis, we identified 3 characteristics with statistically significant impact on both impressions and engagement:

  1. Polls (β = 0.278): Our most impactful discovery was that interactive polls became our strongest engagement driver. we used polls to introduce clinical scenarios related to featured research, allowing audiences to test their knowledge before revealing study findings.
  2. Graphics (β = 0.195): Professional graphics significantly boosted engagement, leading us to add a dedicated graphic designer to the team after 2 years. This wasn’t cosmetic—it was a data-driven personnel decision.
  3. URL Links (β = 0.173): Links to full articles didn’t just drive traffic; they contributed to increased Altmetric Attention Scores, providing measurable academic impact beyond social media metrics.

Surprisingly, emojis showed a negative correlation with engagement in our academic audience. We hypothesize that these emojis may have not resonated with our academic and healthcare professions audience— a reminder that strategies must be tailored to the desired audience.

research dissemination architect pecarn ALiEM twitter X

Lessons Learned for Building Research Dissemination Architecture

1. Analytics Are Non-Negotiable

Don’t guess about what works. Track impressions, engagement, click-through rates, and downstream academic metrics. What gets measured gets optimized.

2. Quality Control Maintains Credibility

Our peer review process for each tweet provided academic rigor for accuracy and quality, treating social media content with the same methodological care we apply to research publications. This approach strengthened PECARN’s digital credibility and built trustworthiness with our professional audience who expect evidence-based content even in 280 characters.

3. Team Redundancy Ensures Sustainability

Faculty have complex schedules. Build systems that work despite individual availability challenges.

4. Visual Content Isn’t Optional

Professional graphics aren’t “nice to have”—they’re proven engagement drivers in the era of information overload. They are worth the investment.

New Academic Role: Research Dissemination Architect

What began as grassroots FOAM (Free Open Access Medical education) with individual bloggers and social media educators has evolved into something more substantial: the emergence of the “Research Dissemination Architect” as a legitimate, potentially funded position within academic institutions and research organizations.

This represents a fundamental shift in how we think about knowledge translation careers. We’re no longer talking about faculty “doing social media on the side”—we’re talking about dedicated professional positions with specific expertise, measurable outcomes, and institutional recognition. Our recent publication in JMIR Formative Research documents our journey in this evolution. The ALiEM-PECARN partnership wasn’t just about Twitter success; it was about demonstrating that research dissemination can be a systematic, professional discipline worthy of institutional investment and academic recognition.

Conclusion

The PECARN-ALiEM partnership demonstrates that academic rigor and social media success aren’t mutually exclusive—they’re synergistic when approached systematically. Through this collaboration, we’ve contributed to establishing systematic approaches to research dissemination as a pathway toward accelerated knowledge translation.

Research Dissemination Architects represent an emerging career pathway that bridges traditional academic expertise with digital communication skills. As medical education continues evolving toward digital-first approaches, faculty who develop competency in evidence-based social media are positioning themselves at the forefront of this evolution. The framework we’ve developed offers one approach to professional research dissemination. As more organizations experiment with similar roles, we’ll undoubtedly see diverse models emerge, each contributing to our collective understanding of effective academic digital scholarship.

We hope our experience can inform others exploring this space. Whether you adapt our specific approach or develop entirely different methods, the opportunity to advance how research reaches its intended audiences has never been greater.

Reference

  1. Hooley GC, Magana JN, Woods JM, et al. Research Dissemination Strategies in Pediatric Emergency Care Using a Professional Twitter (X) Account: A Mixed Methods Developmental Study of a Logic Model Framework. JMIR Form Res. 2025;9:e59481. Published 2025 Jun 24. doi:10.2196/59481. PMID 40554778

EM Match Advice 48: Transitioning from ERAS to ResidencyCAS – Platform Features and Essential Resources

ResidencyCAS - transitioning out of ERAS application

In this episode of EM Match Advice, Dr. Sara Krzyzaniak (Stanford University EM Program Director) speaks with Dr. Liza Smith (Clerkship Director/Associate Program Director at UMass Baystate and past Chair of the CORD Application Process Improvement Committee, and Dr. Tim Fallon (Associate Program Director at Maine Medical Center and the committee’s current Chair), about the historic transition from ERAS to ResidencyCAS for EM residency applications. This marks the first year that EM is using ResidencyCAS as an application service, moving away from the ERAS platform used in previous years. The discussion focuses on essential resources and new platform features that applicants need to understand for successful applications.

Podcast: Transitioning from ERAS to ResidencyCAS

 

Critical Updates for the 2025-2026 Application Cycle

  • Do NOT apply to EM programs through ERAS for 2025-2026 – All EM applications go through ResidencyCAS.
  • ALL EM combined programs also use ResidencyCAS: EM-IM, EM-Peds, EM-Anesthesia, EM-FM, etc. are all on ResidencyCAS, not ERAS
    • Exception: If applying to separate specialties (e.g., both EM and IM as separate applications), you’ll need both ResidencyCAS for EM and ERAS for other specialties

Major Application Changes

  • Geographic preferences redesigned: The traditional regional geographic preference ranking has been eliminated. The new approach focuses on listing specific city-state locations where you’d feel supported (such as a hometown), rather than broad regional preferences
  • Hobbies section returns: The hobbies section is being reintroduced to ResidencyCAS applications
  • Non-work experience section added: Applicants can now include experiences outside of traditional work or medical activities

Key Dates for 2025-2026 EM ResidencyCAS Applications

  • June 4, 2025: ResidencyCAS application opens for data entry and initial application work
  • August 25, 2025: First date to officially request transcripts (USMLE/COMLEX) and Dean’s letters (MSPE) from schools
  • September 24, 2025: Application submission deadline
  • October 1, 2025: Programs can begin reviewing applications

Caution: These dates are specific to ResidencyCAS for Emergency Medicine applications. Always verify dates directly with official sources as they may be subject to change.

Featured Resources

1. ResidencyCAS Official Website

  • What it is: Official platform and information hub for ResidencyCAS applications
  • Access: ResidencyCAS.com

2. EMRA Advising Guide (Updated 2024)

3. Applicant Sandbox

4. CORD Homepage Resources

Read and Listen to the Other EM Match Advice Episodes

Blog posts: https://www.aliem.com/em-match-advice-series/

 

By |2025-05-25T17:16:52-07:00May 26, 2025|EM Match Advice, Medical Student|

EM Match Advice 47: 2025 EM Match By The Numbers

EM Match Advice 2025 Match by the numbers

The Emergency Medicine (EM) Match process continues to evolve, with the specialty experiencing significant shifts in recent years. In this 47th installment of the EM Match Advice podcast series, Dr. Sara Krzyzaniak (Stanford EM PD) hosts the annual program director reflection on the Match with Dr. Abra Fant (Northwestern EM PD), who returns for her fourth consecutive year to share insights on the NRMP Match trends and data. 

Podcast Episode: EM Match by the Numbers

 

Tables: EM Match by the Numbers

EM Match Advice by the Numbers

 

EM Match by the Numbers by specialty

 

Key 2025 Match Statistics: A Clear Improvement

Significant Reduction in Unfilled Positions

The most notable trend in the 2025 EM match is the continued reduction in unfilled positions:

  • 65 (2%) unfilled positions in 2025, down from 135 (4%) unfilled positions in 2024
  • This continues the positive trend from the peak of 554 (18%) unfilled positions in 2023

Dr. Fant notes this represents a faster-than-expected recovery: “I think we all suspected we would recover as a specialty, but looking at other specialties that have gone through similar roller coasters, I think this recovery has been more rapid than potentially others anticipated.”

Program and Position Growth

The 2025 match showed stable program numbers with modest growth in positions:

  • 292 EM programs in 2025, unchanged from 2024
  • 3,068 total positions offered, up slightly from 3,026 in 2024
  • 3,753 total applicants to EM in 2025, up slightly from 3,574 in 2024

Applicant Demographics Remain Stable

The composition of the EM applicant pool remained relatively consistent year-over-year:

  • 1,514 US MD seniors (40% of applicants)
  • 1,231 DO seniors (33% of applicants)
  • The remaining 27% comprised IMGs and other applicant types

Fill Rates by Applicant Type

The distribution of positions filled by different applicant types remained stable:

  • 1,377 positions filled by US MD seniors (45% of filled positions)
  • 1,078 positions filled by DO seniors (35% of filled positions)
  • 446 positions filled by US IMGs (15% of filled positions)
  • The fill rate for EM positions was 98% overall

Factors Driving Success in the EM Match

Several key factors contribute to the improved Match results and program director priorities:

  1. Realistic interview and ranking practices
  2. Effective use of preference signals
  3. Better distribution of interviews 
  4. Geographic considerations
  5. Demonstrated interest in Emergency Medicine

Looking Ahead: Changes on the Horizon

Several significant changes are coming to EM education and the application process:

  • Proposed Resident Review Committee (RRC) program requirements: New RRC requirements were announced right around rank list certification day, which could significantly impact the upcoming match cycle.
  • Transition to ResidencyCAS system: The specialty is moving from ERAS to ResidencyCAS, representing substantial shift to an entirely new platform to manage applications, interviews, and communications.

Despite these upcoming changes, Dr. Fant remains optimistic: “Overall this is a really positive outlook for applicants to emergency medicine in the upcoming 2025-26 Match cycle.”

“EM is one of the best specialties. It has been for many years and we have overcome plenty of roadblocks. We hope that you will join our ranks.”

Read and Listen to the Other EM Match Advice Episodes

Blog posts: https://www.aliem.com/em-match-advice-series/

 

By |2025-05-25T13:11:16-07:00Apr 24, 2025|EM Match Advice, Medical Student|
Go to Top