BACKGROUND: To assess the effect of neurology residency education as trainees advance into independent practice, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) elected to survey all graduating neurology residents at time of graduation and in 3-year cycles thereafter. METHODS: A 22-question survey was sent to all neurology residents completing residency training in the United States in 2007. RESULTS: Of 523 eligible residents, 285 (54.5%) responded. Of these, 92% reported good to excellent quality teaching of basic neurology from their faculty; however, 47% noted less than ideal training in basic neuroscience. Two-thirds indicated that the Residency In-service Training Examination was used only as a self-assessment tool, but reports of misuse were made by some residents. After residency, 78% entered fellowships (with 61% choosing a fellowship based on interactions with a mentor at their institution), whereas 20% entered practice directly. After adjustment for the proportion of residents who worked before the duty hour rules were implemented and after their implementation, more than half reported improvement in quality of life (87%), education (60%), and patient care (62%). The majority of international medical graduates reported wanting to stay in the United States to practice rather than return to their country of residence. CONCLUSIONS: Neurology residents are generally satisfied with training, and most entered a fellowship. Duty hour implementation may have improved resident quality of life, but reciprocal concerns were raised about impact on patient care and education. Despite the majority of international trainees wishing to stay in the United States, stricter immigration laws may limit their entry into the future neurology workforce.
BACKGROUND: To assess the effect of neurology residency education as trainees advance into independent practice, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) elected to survey all graduating neurology residents at time of graduation and in 3-year cycles thereafter. METHODS: A 22-question survey was sent to all neurology residents completing residency training in the United States in 2007. RESULTS: Of 523 eligible residents, 285 (54.5%) responded. Of these, 92% reported good to excellent quality teaching of basic neurology from their faculty; however, 47% noted less than ideal training in basic neuroscience. Two-thirds indicated that the Residency In-service Training Examination was used only as a self-assessment tool, but reports of misuse were made by some residents. After residency, 78% entered fellowships (with 61% choosing a fellowship based on interactions with a mentor at their institution), whereas 20% entered practice directly. After adjustment for the proportion of residents who worked before the duty hour rules were implemented and after their implementation, more than half reported improvement in quality of life (87%), education (60%), and patient care (62%). The majority of international medical graduates reported wanting to stay in the United States to practice rather than return to their country of residence. CONCLUSIONS: Neurology residents are generally satisfied with training, and most entered a fellowship. Duty hour implementation may have improved resident quality of life, but reciprocal concerns were raised about impact on patient care and education. Despite the majority of international trainees wishing to stay in the United States, stricter immigration laws may limit their entry into the future neurology workforce.
Authors: Martin Rakusa; Walter Struhal; Sofia Gak; Surat Tanprawate; Peter Balicza; Ayaz M Khawaja; Logan D Schneider Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Michael T Halpern; Heather Kane; Stephanie Teixeira-Poit; Corey Ford; Barbara Giesser; June Halper; Shana Johnson; Nicholas G LaRocca; Aaron Miller; Steven P Ringel Journal: Int J MS Care Date: 2018 Jan-Feb