Dear Editor,
The fruition of longstanding efforts to enable emergency medicine specialists in Türkiye to pursue intensive care subspecialty training marks a significant milestone, both in professional advancement and in the development of our country’s healthcare system. As a result of over 20 years of dedicated work by emergency medicine associations in Türkiye, spearheaded by the Emergency Medicine Specialists Association, emergency medicine specialists have been granted the right to take the Subspecialty Examination (YDUS).
The Student Selection and Placement Center conducted the first YDUS in this context on December 15, 2024, in Ankara. The Emergency Medicine specialty exam required candidates to complete 60 multiple-choice questions within 80 minutes. No open-ended questions were included.
This important development will allow emergency medicine specialists to enhance their knowledge and skills further, and become integral part of a multidisciplinary team. However, analyzing the content, question distribution, and shortcomings of the first exam will serve as a guide for both candidates preparing for the examination shaping the future structure of these exams.
Content Analysis of YDUS 2024 in The Field of Emergency Medicine
The distribution of the 60 questions in YDUS 2024 has been analyzed. The findings are presented below:
• Basic Principles of Intensive Care: Three questions; topics such as ventilator management, hemodynamic support, and infection control were addressed.
• Emergency Medicine-Related Cases: Thirty-one questions; questions covered emergency situations such as shock, trauma management, cardiac arrest, airway management, and toxicology.
• Pharmacology: Thirteen questions; topics included drug interactions and the management of sedation and analgesia.
• Basic Medical Knowledge: Eight questions; questions assessed foundational knowledge acquired during medical school.
• Guideline Knowledge: Three questions; current guideline-based information was tested.
• Scoring Systems and Criteria: Seven questions; questions focused on clinical scoring systems and criteria.
• Special Patient Groups and Cases: Five questions; specific situations, such as pediatric patients, pregnant patients, and environmental emergencies, were addressed.
• Questions with Visuals: Two questions; 1 question featured a plain radiograph, and another included a computed tomography image.
• Ethical and Legal Issues in Intensive Care: Zero questions; no questions were categorized under this topic.
• Topics not Covered; The exam did not include any questions with electrocardiogram visuals.
Additionally, a closer examination of the questions revealed that 24 were case-based, while four required knowledge of specific facts (1).
This analysis is expected to serve as a valuable resource for preparing for future exams.
Granting emergency medicine specialists, the right to enter the intensive care subspecialty is a significant achievement for our country’s healthcare system. However, it is essential to focus on the content of the exams, alignment with the curriculum, and ensure a fair evaluation system during this process. The analysis of the first exam will contribute to the planning of more effective and inclusive exams in the future.
