BACKGROUND: Procedural learning requires both didactic knowledge and motor skills. Optimal teaching styles and techniques remain to be defined for pulmonary procedural learning. We investigated the preferences of learners at 2 different points in a pulmonary career; as pulmonary fellows and as clinical practitioners. METHODS: A perception survey was conducted among pulmonary fellows and practitioners from multiple institutions throughout the United States. Fellows and practitioners were immediately surveyed on procedural learning factors after completing a procedural learning course using low/high-fidelity and/or cadaver simulators. Survey questions consisting of biographical information and multiple choice, Likert style, and qualitative questions regarding learning preferences were collected. RESULTS: Seventy-five physicians (44 pulmonary fellows, 31 practitioners) from 35 centers completed the survey. Pulmonary practitioners preferred an academic expert, whereas fellows preferred familiar faculty as lecturers for procedural learning (P=0.03). There were no statistical differences between fellows/practitioners value of the use of simulators, didactics, or handouts. Both groups preferred animal/cadaver and high-fidelity simulators to low-fidelity simulators. Both groups also preferred a traditional course structure to problem-based learning/flipped classroom. The most common answer to barriers for learning a new procedure was "time" for training followed by "opportunities" to learn. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary fellows and practitioners we surveyed preferred a traditional course structure with cadaver/animal models and high-fidelity simulation training as compared with a flipped classroom model and low-fidelity simulators, but whether this holds true for the wider population is unknown. Larger studies are needed to validate learning perception with outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Procedural learning requires both didactic knowledge and motor skills. Optimal teaching styles and techniques remain to be defined for pulmonary procedural learning. We investigated the preferences of learners at 2 different points in a pulmonary career; as pulmonary fellows and as clinical practitioners. METHODS: A perception survey was conducted among pulmonary fellows and practitioners from multiple institutions throughout the United States. Fellows and practitioners were immediately surveyed on procedural learning factors after completing a procedural learning course using low/high-fidelity and/or cadaver simulators. Survey questions consisting of biographical information and multiple choice, Likert style, and qualitative questions regarding learning preferences were collected. RESULTS: Seventy-five physicians (44 pulmonary fellows, 31 practitioners) from 35 centers completed the survey. Pulmonary practitioners preferred an academic expert, whereas fellows preferred familiar faculty as lecturers for procedural learning (P=0.03). There were no statistical differences between fellows/practitioners value of the use of simulators, didactics, or handouts. Both groups preferred animal/cadaver and high-fidelity simulators to low-fidelity simulators. Both groups also preferred a traditional course structure to problem-based learning/flipped classroom. The most common answer to barriers for learning a new procedure was "time" for training followed by "opportunities" to learn. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary fellows and practitioners we surveyed preferred a traditional course structure with cadaver/animal models and high-fidelity simulation training as compared with a flipped classroom model and low-fidelity simulators, but whether this holds true for the wider population is unknown. Larger studies are needed to validate learning perception with outcomes.