H Barrett1, J F Bion. 1. University Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, N5 Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK. h.barrett@bham.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this international survey of training in adult intensive care medicine (ICM) was to characterise current structures, processes, and outcomes to determine the potential for convergence to a common competency-based training programme across national borders. This survey is the first phase of a 3 year project which will use consensus methods to build an international competency-based training programme in ICM in Europe (CoBaTrICE). METHODOLOGY: A survey by questionnaire, e-mail, and direct discussion was undertaken with national ICM representatives from seven geographical regions. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 41 countries (countries which share common training programmes were grouped together; n=38). Fifty-four different training programmes were identified, 37 within the European region; three (6%) were competency-based. Twenty (53%) permitted multidisciplinary access to a common training programme; in nine (24%) training was only available within anaesthesia. The minimum duration of ICM training required for recognition as a specialist varied from 3 months to 72 months (mode 24 months). The content of most (75%) ICM programmes was standardised nationally. Work-based assessment of competence was formally documented in nineteen (50%) countries. An exam was mandatory in twenty-nine (76%). CONCLUSION: There are considerable variations in the structures and processes of ICM training worldwide. However, as competency-based training is an outcome strategy rather than a didactic process, these differences should not impede the development of a common international competency-based training programme in ICM.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this international survey of training in adult intensive care medicine (ICM) was to characterise current structures, processes, and outcomes to determine the potential for convergence to a common competency-based training programme across national borders. This survey is the first phase of a 3 year project which will use consensus methods to build an international competency-based training programme in ICM in Europe (CoBaTrICE). METHODOLOGY: A survey by questionnaire, e-mail, and direct discussion was undertaken with national ICM representatives from seven geographical regions. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 41 countries (countries which share common training programmes were grouped together; n=38). Fifty-four different training programmes were identified, 37 within the European region; three (6%) were competency-based. Twenty (53%) permitted multidisciplinary access to a common training programme; in nine (24%) training was only available within anaesthesia. The minimum duration of ICM training required for recognition as a specialist varied from 3 months to 72 months (mode 24 months). The content of most (75%) ICM programmes was standardised nationally. Work-based assessment of competence was formally documented in nineteen (50%) countries. An exam was mandatory in twenty-nine (76%). CONCLUSION: There are considerable variations in the structures and processes of ICM training worldwide. However, as competency-based training is an outcome strategy rather than a didactic process, these differences should not impede the development of a common international competency-based training programme in ICM.
Authors: Todd Dorman; Peter B Angood; Derek C Angus; Terry P Clemmer; Neal H Cohen; Charles G Durbin; Jay L Falk; Mark A Helfaer; Marilyn T Haupt; H Mathilda Horst; Michael E Ivy; Frederick P Ognibene; Robert N Sladen; Ake N A Grenvik; Lena M Napolitano Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Peter Andrews; Elie Azoulay; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Jerome Pugin; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-02-17 Impact factor: 17.440