For ABEM revision in October 2026, begin by checking that you are using ACEP Learn rather than following instructions for the retired ACEP PEER app. Then organise each session around an unfamiliar question, an explanation and a later check of the same reasoning. A platform change should not become a reason to abandon useful learning or recreate every historical statistic.
This article is published by iatroX and includes iatroX as a possible adjunct to PEER. The aim is a workable study process, not an assertion that switching away from ACEP's resources would improve your examination result.
What changed in the PEER app arrangement
In its 26 April 2026 app announcement, ACEP introduced the ACEP Learn app for PEER subscribers and said the former app would retire on 4 June 2026. It also stated that progress could not transfer because the platforms differed. These dates were checked on 3 October 2026; the old completion and credit-claim deadlines are now in the past.
That is more than a change of icon. A candidate returning after time away should confirm the current account, entitlement and visible study history before treating an empty dashboard as evidence that no preparation has occurred. Do not assume old progress will eventually appear automatically.
If access or a previous learning record is unclear, contact ACEP support. Avoid reconstructing a score from memory or presenting a manually assembled record as a platform-generated report. An incomplete historical dashboard and an incomplete understanding of medicine are different problems.
Establish a new baseline without repeating everything
Use a modest unfamiliar question set to determine what needs attention now. Label it as a fresh baseline rather than attempting to make it numerically comparable with an older platform's report. Different question selections and previous exposure can change the meaning of a percentage.
A fictional candidate, Michelle, had completed substantial PEER work before a break in revision. After returning, she feels that the missing historical progress means she must start the entire curriculum again. Instead, she reviews her legitimate existing notes and samples unfamiliar material across the official scope.
Some areas remain secure; others need review. Her plan follows the current pattern, not an administrative desire to recreate every completed item. This is a suggested response to a learning-record problem, not evidence of what happens to any particular subscriber's account.
Select one useful activity from the current platform
ACEP's April 2026 announcement describes study planning, custom quizzes, mock examinations and other review activities in the new app. Its current PEER for Physicians page, checked on 3 October 2026, also describes explanations, confidence-based review and question-linked study tools.
Choose the activity according to the question you need answered. A custom quiz can examine a neglected area. A mixed block can reveal whether knowledge transfers when topics are interleaved. A mock can investigate pacing and sustained performance. These are different purposes, even when the same platform supplies them.
Do not convert an application's suggested weekly tasks into an obligation to complete every format. Your plan must fit the examination date, available time and the amount of review each activity generates.
Build a question-to-explanation loop
Attempt the question before viewing the answer. Note the clinical task being asked and the detail that most influenced your choice. During review, compare that reasoning with the explanation rather than simply checking which option was correct.
For an incorrect answer, decide whether you lacked a fact, misinterpreted the scenario or answered a different decision from the one requested. For a correct answer, ask whether the reasoning was secure or whether recognition and guessing concealed a gap.
Michelle notices that she often chooses a plausible investigation without establishing what has already been done. Her corrective note is not a long list of investigations. It records the distinction between the information available now and the decision that follows. The next exercise tests that distinction in another presentation.
Add reference reading only when it has a job
A useful explanation may expose a genuine uncertainty that requires a primary source or deeper reference. Write that uncertainty before opening another resource. This keeps reading directed at a decision rather than allowing one missed question to consume the entire evening.
Use current US context for jurisdiction-sensitive issues. The source appropriate to a US emergency-medicine question may differ from the source used in another national curriculum. Do not resolve the disagreement by choosing whichever summary is shortest or most familiar.
Stop the review when you can explain the distinction and identify how you will test it. Greater depth can be valuable, but it should respond to the learning need. A final-month programme needs both targeted repair and sufficient remaining breadth.
Use an adjunct only when it adds a different function
Under iatroX's October 2026 product information, its Socratic Tutor uses an attempted question as the starting point for targeted follow-up questions. It can provide a different way to explore why an answer was attractive and what information would change the conclusion. That is a potential fit for Michelle's reasoning gap, not evidence that PEER explanations are inadequate.
Keep copyrighted question text and account restrictions in mind. There is no need to copy another provider's entire question or explanation into an external tool. Describe the general learning problem without reproducing protected content, or use an appropriately selected question within iatroX itself.
If PEER's explanation and your own review already resolve the issue, another tool may add little. The purpose of the adjunct is a completed learning task, not a parallel second curriculum.
Separate subscription access from credit and readiness
Check current product entitlements and membership eligibility through ACEP's pricing information. A particular commercial product's CME terms should not be assumed to apply to every app activity or to a separate learning platform.
As stated by iatroX on 3 October 2026, free question access and Ask-iatroX have no trial expiry or verification gate. Full banks, ongoing Tutor, planner, simulations and CPD are included together in its paid subscription. A reviewed professional learning record is not automatically accredited US CME.
Similarly, a platform score is not an official ABEM result. Use it to identify the next learning task, while keeping your examination requirements and permitted resources grounded in the ABEM preparation guidance.
Finish each session with a specific return point
Leave a short note stating the unresolved distinction and the next activity. "Review emergency medicine" is too broad; "try an unfamiliar question that distinguishes the immediate decision from a later investigation" is usable.
For an established PEER user, the preferred route is usually to resolve access, establish a current baseline and keep the effective parts of the routine. For someone who needs dialogue to unpack a misconception, a bounded iatroX session may add a useful method. For a candidate whose problem is pacing alone, an appropriate mock and debrief may be enough. The platform is serving the learning when you know what to do next without maintaining several competing plans.
Frequently asked questions
Can progress from the retired PEER app be assumed to transfer to ACEP Learn?
No: ACEP's April 2026 announcement said that progress could not transfer between the different platforms. Check any account-specific questions with ACEP rather than assuming a missing history represents missing learning.
Should I complete a mock every time I use the app?
No: give each activity a specific purpose and retain time for review. Targeted concept repair may be more useful than another full mock.
Does adding iatroX mean replacing PEER?
No: it can be used for a distinct learning task where guided questioning helps. Retaining PEER alone is reasonable when its existing functions already meet your needs.