Background. There are currently 34 International Emergency Medicine (IEM) fellowship programs. Applicants and programs are increasing in number and diversity. Without a standardized application, applicants have a difficulty approaching programs in an informed and an organized method; a streamlined application system is necessary. Objectives. To measure fellows' knowledge of their programs' curricula prior to starting fellowship and to determine what percent of fellows and program directors would support a universal application system. Methods. A focus group of program directors, recent, and current fellows convened to determine the most important features of an IEM fellowship application process. A survey was administered electronically to a convenience sample of 78 participants from 34 programs. Respondents included fellowship directors, fellows, and recent graduates. Results. Most fellows (70%) did not know their program's curriculum prior to starting fellowship. The majority of program directors and fellows support a uniform application service (81% and 67%, resp.) and deadline (85% for both). A minority of program directors (35%) and fellows (30%) support a formal match. Conclusions. Program directors and fellows support a uniform application service and deadline, but not a formalized match. Forums for disseminating IEM fellowship information and for administering a uniform application service and deadline are currently in development to improve the process.

OBJECTIVE:Experts have proposed core curriculum components for international emergency medicine (IEM) fellowships. This study examined perceptions of program directors (PDs) and fellows on whether IEM fellowships cover these components, whether their perspectives differ and the barriers preventing fellowships from covering them.METHODS:From 1 November 2011 to 30 November 2011, a survey was administered to PDs, current fellows and recent graduates of the 34 US IEM fellowships. Respondents quantified their fellowship experience in six proposed core curriculum areas: emergency medicine (EM) systems development, EM education, humanitarian assistance, public health, emergency medical services and disaster medicine. Analysis was performed regarding what per cent of programmes fulfil the six curriculum areas. A paired t test determined the difference between PDs' and fellows' responses. Agreement between PDs and fellows within the same programme was determined using a κ statistic.RESULTS:Only 1/18 (6%) (according to fellows) to 2/24 (8%) (according to PDs) of programmes expose fellows to all six components. PDs consistently reported higher exposure than fellows. The difference in mean score between PDs and fellows was statistically significant (p<0.05) in three of the 6 (50%) core curriculum elements: humanitarian aid, public health and disaster medicine. Per cent agreement between PDs and fellows within each programmes ranged from poor to fair.CONCLUSIONS:While IEM fellowships have varying structure, this study highlights the importance of further discussion between PDs and fellows regarding delineation and objectives of core curriculum components. Transparent curricula and open communication between PDs and fellows may reduce differences in reported experiences.