Hans J Lee1, David Feller-Kopman2, R Wesley Shepherd3, Francisco A Almeida4, Rabih Bechara5, David Berkowitz5, Mohit Chawla6, Erik Folch7, Andrew Haas8, Colin Gillespie9, Robert Lee10, Adnan Majid7, Rajiv Malhotra3, Ali Musani11, Jonathan Puchalski12, Daniel Sterman8, Lonny Yarmus2. 1. Interventional Pulmonology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, VA. Electronic address: snah74@hotmail.com. 2. Interventional Pulmonology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 3. Interventional Pulmonology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, VA. 4. Department of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 5. Interventional Pulmonology Program, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 6. Pulmonary Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 7. Division of Thoracic Surgery and Interventional Pulmonology Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 8. Section of Interventional Pulmonology and Thoracic Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 9. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. 10. Medicine/Pulmonary Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 11. National Jewish Health, Denver, CO. 12. Internal Medicine-Pulmonary, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interventional pulmonology (IP) is an emerging subspecialty with a dedicated 12 months of additional training after traditional pulmonary and critical care fellowships with fellowships across the country. A multiple-choice question (MCQ) examination was developed to measure didactic knowledge acquired in IP fellowships. METHODS: Interventional pulmonologists from 10 academic centers developed a MCQ-based examination on a proposed curriculum for IP fellowships. The 75 multiple-choice question examination was proctored, time limited (120 min), and computer-based. The examination was administered to IP faculty, IP fellows in their last month of fellowship, graduating pulmonary and critical care fellows in their last month of training, and incoming first-year pulmonary and critical care fellows. RESULTS: The mean score for IP faculty was 87% (range, 83%-94%), 74% for IP fellows (range, 61%-81%, SD 5.09, median 76%), 62% for graduating pulmonary and critical care fellows (range 52% to 73%), and 50% for incoming pulmonary/critical care fellows (range, 35%-65%). There was a graduated increase in mean scores with level of IP training. Scores differed significantly across the four groups (P = .001). CONCLUSION: A validated MCQ examination can measure IP knowledge. There is a difference in IP knowledge based on IP training exposure.
BACKGROUND: Interventional pulmonology (IP) is an emerging subspecialty with a dedicated 12 months of additional training after traditional pulmonary and critical care fellowships with fellowships across the country. A multiple-choice question (MCQ) examination was developed to measure didactic knowledge acquired in IP fellowships. METHODS: Interventional pulmonologists from 10 academic centers developed a MCQ-based examination on a proposed curriculum for IP fellowships. The 75 multiple-choice question examination was proctored, time limited (120 min), and computer-based. The examination was administered to IP faculty, IP fellows in their last month of fellowship, graduating pulmonary and critical care fellows in their last month of training, and incoming first-year pulmonary and critical care fellows. RESULTS: The mean score for IP faculty was 87% (range, 83%-94%), 74% for IP fellows (range, 61%-81%, SD 5.09, median 76%), 62% for graduating pulmonary and critical care fellows (range 52% to 73%), and 50% for incoming pulmonary/critical care fellows (range, 35%-65%). There was a graduated increase in mean scores with level of IP training. Scores differed significantly across the four groups (P = .001). CONCLUSION: A validated MCQ examination can measure IP knowledge. There is a difference in IP knowledge based on IP training exposure.