Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2026
Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
Published on: January 15, 2017
Three-year emergency medicine training program in The Netherlands: first evaluation from the residents' perspective
Salomon Willem Koning1, Menno Iskander Gaakeer, Rebekka Veugelers
1Emergency Medicine, Emergency Medicine Department, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, CX 3584, The Netherlands. swkoning@gmail.com.
Background:
The Netherlands' 3-year training in Emergency Medicine (EM) was formally approved and introduced in November 2008. To identify areas for improvement, we conducted the first evaluation of this curriculum from the residents' perspective.
Methods:
A questionnaire was composed on ten aspects of the curriculum. It contained multiple-choice, open and opinion questions; answers to the latter were classified using the Likert scale. The questionnaires were mailed to all enrolled residents.
Results:
We mailed questionnaires to all 189 enrolled residents, and 105 responded (55.6%). Although they were satisfied with their training overall, 96.2% thought it was currently too short: 18.3% desired extension to 4 years, 76.0% to 5 and 1.9% to 6 years. Nevertheless, residents expected that they would function effectively as emergency physicians (EPs) after finishing their 3-year training program. Bedside teaching was assessed positively by 35.2%. All rotations were assessed positively, with the general practice rotation seen as contributing the least to the program. According to 43.7%, supervising EPs were available for consultation; 40.7% thought that, in a clinical capacity, the EP was sufficiently present during residents' shifts. When EPs were present, 82.5% found them to be easily accessible, and 66.6% viewed them as role models. In the Emergency Medicine Departments (EDs) with a higher number of EPs employed, residents tended to perceive better supervision and were more likely to see their EPs as role models. While residents were stimulated to do research, actual support and assistance needed to be improved.
Conclusion:
Although overall, the current training program was evaluated positively, the residents identified four areas for improvement: (1) in training hospitals, trained EPs should be present more continuously for clinical supervision; (2) bedside teaching should be improved, (3) scientific research should be facilitated more and (4) the training program should be extended.
