Paul D Johnson1, Stefan Sillau2, Joseph C Masdeu2, Douglas E Ney2, Pearce J Korb2. 1. From the University of Colorado (P.D.J., S.S., D.E.N., P.J.K.), Denver; and Weill Cornell Medicine (J.C.M.), New York, NY. johnson2089@gmail.com. 2. From the University of Colorado (P.D.J., S.S., D.E.N., P.J.K.), Denver; and Weill Cornell Medicine (J.C.M.), New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand how the essential skill of interpreting various neuroimaging studies is taught to neurology residents in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited training programs. METHODS: A 22-question survey was sent electronically to 150 ACGME adult neurology program directors. We collected data regarding the presence of a neuroimaging curriculum, frequency of review sessions and testing, resource availability, and program director confidence in neuroimaging skills of graduating residents. We collected average scores on the neuroimaging section of the Resident In-service Training Examination of graduating residents for the past 3 years, which we attempted to correlate with resource availability. RESULTS: One-third of neurology residency programs do not have a neuroimaging curriculum, and half of training programs do not require a neuroimaging rotation. On average, trainees spend 1 hour per week reviewing imaging with radiologists. Program directors believed trainees receive insufficient neuroimaging training, with a median satisfaction rating on a Likert scale (0-100) of 35 (interquartile range 27-47). Few programs take advantage of online training resources. CONCLUSION: Opportunities exist to improve neuroimaging education in neurology resident education. This can be done by closer adherence to the American Academy of Neurology neuroimaging curriculum guidelines, especially by expanding access to online resources and additional emphasis on imaging review with neurology subspecialists.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand how the essential skill of interpreting various neuroimaging studies is taught to neurology residents in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited training programs. METHODS: A 22-question survey was sent electronically to 150 ACGME adult neurology program directors. We collected data regarding the presence of a neuroimaging curriculum, frequency of review sessions and testing, resource availability, and program director confidence in neuroimaging skills of graduating residents. We collected average scores on the neuroimaging section of the Resident In-service Training Examination of graduating residents for the past 3 years, which we attempted to correlate with resource availability. RESULTS: One-third of neurology residency programs do not have a neuroimaging curriculum, and half of training programs do not require a neuroimaging rotation. On average, trainees spend 1 hour per week reviewing imaging with radiologists. Program directors believed trainees receive insufficient neuroimaging training, with a median satisfaction rating on a Likert scale (0-100) of 35 (interquartile range 27-47). Few programs take advantage of online training resources. CONCLUSION: Opportunities exist to improve neuroimaging education in neurology resident education. This can be done by closer adherence to the American Academy of Neurology neuroimaging curriculum guidelines, especially by expanding access to online resources and additional emphasis on imaging review with neurology subspecialists.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317