Zulfi Haneef1, Sharon Chiang, Holly C Rutherford, Arun R Antony. 1. *Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.; †TheVA Medical Center, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.; ‡Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.; §Department of Statistics, Rice University, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.; ∥Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.; and ¶Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fellowship training in Clinical Neurophysiology (CNP) is often sought following Neurology residency. However, data documenting the reasons for choosing CNP fellowship, and experiences therein, are sparse. METHODS: Current Neurophysiology fellows across the United States participated in a 17-item, Internet-based survey. Data regarding demographics, reasons for choosing fellowship, adequacy of training, and future plans were collected. RESULTS: Among respondents (n = 49), 84% graduated from a US medical school. Personal interest in CNP was the most common reason for choosing the fellowship. Program choice was guided by location and clinical strength of the program. Choosing a program based on clinical strength was likely to result in higher satisfaction scores. Overall, most (87%) were satisfied with their current program giving a satisfaction score of 4 or 5 on a 1-5 Likert scale. Lesser time spent in the epilepsy monitoring unit and EEG was also associated with higher satisfaction scores-these were also the areas that seemed to be most stressed during training. No differences emerged between male and female respondents in their answers to the various survey questions. CONCLUSIONS: The authors encountered a group of academically minded CNP trainees who are satisfied with their choice of fellowship, the current application process, and training received. Most intend to have a future in academic medicine. The CNP areas that seem to need further development in providing a well-rounded fellowship include training in sleep, evoked potentials, and intraoperative monitoring. The findings would be informative to future fellowship trainees and to program officers.
PURPOSE: Fellowship training in Clinical Neurophysiology (CNP) is often sought following Neurology residency. However, data documenting the reasons for choosing CNP fellowship, and experiences therein, are sparse. METHODS: Current Neurophysiology fellows across the United States participated in a 17-item, Internet-based survey. Data regarding demographics, reasons for choosing fellowship, adequacy of training, and future plans were collected. RESULTS: Among respondents (n = 49), 84% graduated from a US medical school. Personal interest in CNP was the most common reason for choosing the fellowship. Program choice was guided by location and clinical strength of the program. Choosing a program based on clinical strength was likely to result in higher satisfaction scores. Overall, most (87%) were satisfied with their current program giving a satisfaction score of 4 or 5 on a 1-5 Likert scale. Lesser time spent in the epilepsy monitoring unit and EEG was also associated with higher satisfaction scores-these were also the areas that seemed to be most stressed during training. No differences emerged between male and female respondents in their answers to the various survey questions. CONCLUSIONS: The authors encountered a group of academically minded CNP trainees who are satisfied with their choice of fellowship, the current application process, and training received. Most intend to have a future in academic medicine. The CNP areas that seem to need further development in providing a well-rounded fellowship include training in sleep, evoked potentials, and intraoperative monitoring. The findings would be informative to future fellowship trainees and to program officers.