Amanda H Chahine1, Tarek N Hanna1, Lee Myers2, Manickam Kumaravel3, Keith D Herr4. 1. Division of Emergency and Trauma Imaging, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Midtown Hospital, 550 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA. 2. Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1975 Zonal Ave., Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St., Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 4. Division of Emergency and Trauma Imaging, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Midtown Hospital, 550 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA. keith.d.herr@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The number of emergency radiology (ER) training programs in North America is small compared to the projected growth in demand for ER-trained radiologists. To date, there is no consensus-based training curriculum that sets a standard for all ER fellowship training programs. This study seeks to (1) identify the programmatic measures currently used in North American ER fellowship programs and (2) gather the perspectives of existing ER fellowship program directors (PD) and their recommendations for minimum and ideal curricular standards. METHODS: We distributed an 18-question survey to the PDs of every North American ER fellowship program (N = 15). Surveys were completed during the 2016-2017 academic year. We performed a cross-sectional analysis to gain an understanding of existing training curricula, expected areas of competency by the end-of-training, and PD opinions of what a standard ER training curriculum should contain. RESULTS: The data revealed heterogeneity in programmatic structure across the continent, as well as some areas of agreement. PD suggestions for a standard ER training curriculum showed consistency in many areas, including competency and proficiency expectations and clinical exposures, with some variability. These data were used to inform the creation of the first curricular standard for ER fellowship training. CONCLUSION: This study yielded the creation of a standard fellowship training resource for the field of ER. This deliverable serves as a curricular guideline for existing ER fellowships, as well as a model for new ER fellowship programs.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The number of emergency radiology (ER) training programs in North America is small compared to the projected growth in demand for ER-trained radiologists. To date, there is no consensus-based training curriculum that sets a standard for all ER fellowship training programs. This study seeks to (1) identify the programmatic measures currently used in North American ER fellowship programs and (2) gather the perspectives of existing ER fellowship program directors (PD) and their recommendations for minimum and ideal curricular standards. METHODS: We distributed an 18-question survey to the PDs of every North American ER fellowship program (N = 15). Surveys were completed during the 2016-2017 academic year. We performed a cross-sectional analysis to gain an understanding of existing training curricula, expected areas of competency by the end-of-training, and PD opinions of what a standard ER training curriculum should contain. RESULTS: The data revealed heterogeneity in programmatic structure across the continent, as well as some areas of agreement. PD suggestions for a standard ER training curriculum showed consistency in many areas, including competency and proficiency expectations and clinical exposures, with some variability. These data were used to inform the creation of the first curricular standard for ER fellowship training. CONCLUSION: This study yielded the creation of a standard fellowship training resource for the field of ER. This deliverable serves as a curricular guideline for existing ER fellowships, as well as a model for new ER fellowship programs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Education; Emergency radiology; Fellowship curriculum; Fellowship training
Authors: Sanjay K Shetty; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Kelly M Foster; Greg M Galdino; Tara M Lawrimore; Jesse A Davila Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Debra L Monticciolo; Murray Rebner; Catherine M Appleton; Mary S Newell; Dione M Farria; Edward A Sickles; Heidi R Umphrey; Priscilla F Butler Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2012-12-23 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Dione M Farria; Jennifer Salcman; Debra L Monticciolo; Barbara S Monsees; Murray Rebner; Lawrence W Bassett Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: M G Wagner; M R Fischer; M Scaglione; U Linsenmaier; G Schueller; F H Berger; E Dick; R Basilico; M Stajgis; C Calli; S Vaidya; Stefan Wirth Journal: GMS J Med Educ Date: 2017-11-15
Authors: Mariano Scaglione; Raffaella Basilico; Andrea Delli Pizzi; Francesca Iacobellis; Elizabeth Dick; Stefan Wirth; Ulrich Linsenmaier; Cem Calli; Ferco H Berger; Koenraad H Nieboer; Ana Blanco Barrio; Maureen Dumba; Roberto Grassi; Katarzyna Katulska; Gerd Schueller; Michael N Patlas; Andrea Laghi; Mario Muto; Refky Nicola; Marc Zins; Vittorio Miele; Richard Hartley; Douglas S Katz; Lorenzo Derchi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 5.315