Amir H Lebastchi1, John J Tackett1, Michael Argenziano2, John H Calhoon3, Mario G Gasparri4, Michael E Halkos5, George L Hicks6, Mark D Iannettoni7, John S Ikonomidis8, Patrick M McCarthy9, Sandra L Starnes10, Betty C Tong11, David D Yuh12. 1. Section of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. 2. Section of Cardiac Surgery, New York Presbyterian-Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 3. Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Tex. 4. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wis. 5. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga. 6. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. 7. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa. 8. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 9. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Ill. 10. Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. 11. Division of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 12. Section of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. Electronic address: david.yuh@yale.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The recently implemented integrated 6-year (I-6) format represents a significant change in cardiothoracic surgical residency training. We report the results of the first nationwide survey assessing I-6 program directors' impressions of this new format. METHODS: A 28-question web-based survey was distributed to program directors of all 24 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited I-6 training programs in November 2013. The response rate was a robust 67%. RESULTS: Compared with graduates of traditional residencies, most I-6 program directors with enrolled residents believed that their graduates will be better trained (67%), be better prepared for new technological advances (67%), and have superior comprehension of cardiothoracic disease processes (83%). Just as with traditional program graduates, most respondents believed their I-6 graduates would be able to independently perform routine adult cardiac and general thoracic operations (75%) and were equivocal on whether additional specialty training (eg, minimally invasive, heart failure, aortic) was necessary. Most respondents did not believe that less general surgical training disadvantaged I-6 residents in terms of their career (83%); 67% of respondents would have chosen the I-6 format for themselves if given the choice. The greater challenges in training less mature and experienced trainees and vulnerability to attrition were noted as disadvantages of the I-6 format. Most respondents believed that I-6 programs represent a natural evolution toward improved residency training rather than a response to declining interest among medical school graduates. CONCLUSIONS: High satisfaction rates with the I-6 format were prevalent among I-6 program directors. However, concerns with respect to training relatively less experienced, mature trainees were evident.
OBJECTIVE: The recently implemented integrated 6-year (I-6) format represents a significant change in cardiothoracic surgical residency training. We report the results of the first nationwide survey assessing I-6 program directors' impressions of this new format. METHODS: A 28-question web-based survey was distributed to program directors of all 24 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited I-6 training programs in November 2013. The response rate was a robust 67%. RESULTS: Compared with graduates of traditional residencies, most I-6 program directors with enrolled residents believed that their graduates will be better trained (67%), be better prepared for new technological advances (67%), and have superior comprehension of cardiothoracic disease processes (83%). Just as with traditional program graduates, most respondents believed their I-6 graduates would be able to independently perform routine adult cardiac and general thoracic operations (75%) and were equivocal on whether additional specialty training (eg, minimally invasive, heart failure, aortic) was necessary. Most respondents did not believe that less general surgical training disadvantaged I-6 residents in terms of their career (83%); 67% of respondents would have chosen the I-6 format for themselves if given the choice. The greater challenges in training less mature and experienced trainees and vulnerability to attrition were noted as disadvantages of the I-6 format. Most respondents believed that I-6 programs represent a natural evolution toward improved residency training rather than a response to declining interest among medical school graduates. CONCLUSIONS: High satisfaction rates with the I-6 format were prevalent among I-6 program directors. However, concerns with respect to training relatively less experienced, mature trainees were evident.
Authors: Vakhtang Tchantchaleishvili; Bryan Barrus; Peter A Knight; Carolyn E Jones; Thomas J Watson; George L Hicks Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Sarah T Ward; Danielle Smith; Adin-Cristian Andrei; George L Hicks; Richard J Shemin; John H Calhoon; Carolyn Reed; Edward D Verrier; David A Fullerton; Richard Lee Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 4.330