Introduction: Early exposure to subspecialties can shape a medical student’s career path and knowledge base. Limited opportunities to explore fellowship tracks contribute to educational and professional gaps, especially in critical care medicine (CCM), which spans many disciplines. A growing shortage of CCM physicians in the US makes early exploration critical. While most prior work has focused on the residency and fellowship stages, few studies address medical student engagement. This study evaluated the impact of our university’s Critical Care Interest Group on medical student familiarity with CCM through educational activities. Methods: A voluntary survey was distributed to students at the end of the 2024–2025 academic year. Students rated familiarity with CCM before and after the year on a 10-point Likert scale. Engagement was assessed through rating skill sessions, panel discussions, and interest in future programming such as journal clubs, certification tracks, and national affiliation. A paired t-test measured changes in familiarity. Results: Ten students completed the survey out of an estimated average of 24 attendees over the year. Mean familiarity rose from 6.7 to 8.2 (mean difference 1.5, p = 0.013). Skills events (rated 9.4/10) and panel discussions (7.2/10) were highly rated. All respondents expressed interest in a CCM Scholar track, with most supporting future initiatives, such as journal clubs (80%), certificate programs (90%), and national affiliation (80%). Thematic analysis of open-ended responses showed strong interest in gaining hands-on skills and mentorship, with students citing skills labs and faculty as key motivators. Most reported increased interest in CCM and wanted more simulations, research, and mentorship. Conclusions: Participation in a student-led Critical Care Interest Group was linked to an increase in familiarity with CCM and strong perceived engagement. Findings support continued investment in specialty-specific interest groups and opportunities for enrichment through scholarly recognition, certification, and national collaboration. Limitations include small sample size, single-site participation, and selection bias. Future work will examine long-term outcomes, such as career interest and clinical performance, and compare metrics with other specialty interest groups.
Mays et al. (Sun,) studied this question.