scholarly journals Value Placed on Formal Training in Education by Pediatric Department Chairs and Residency Program Directors

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 558-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teri L. Turner ◽  
Mark A. Ward ◽  
Debra L. Palazzi ◽  
Martin I. Lorin
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
The United States ◽  
School Level ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Clinical Faculty ◽  
Pediatric Department ◽  
Residency Program Directors

Abstract Background While much is known about how educational leaders at the medical school level (eg, deans) view the importance of formal training in education for medical school teachers, little is known about how leaders at the clinical level (eg, department chairs) view such training. We sought to determine how pediatric department chairs and residency program directors view the value of formal training in education, such as that at a Master of Education (MEd) level, and to estimate the number of clinical pediatric faculty with or pursuing such training. Methods A survey designed to assess the value placed on formal training in education and to estimate the number of clinical faculty with or pursuing such training was mailed to pediatric department chair persons and residency program directors at all 131 allopathic medical schools in the United States and Puerto Rico. Results Eighty department chairs (61%) responded, and most indicated that when hiring new faculty, they view an applicant with an MEd as having an advantage. Both chairs and residency directors considered an MEd to be advantageous for a residency director by a ranking of 4.5 and 4.2, respectively, on a scale of 1 to 5 (P  =  .008). Of the 80 chairs who responded, 58.8% of respondents reported one or more faculty in their department had or was pursuing an MEd. Of the 72 responding residency directors (55%), 11 respondents (15.3%) indicated that they had an MEd. Conclusion More than half the medical school pediatric chairs responding to the survey had one or more clinical faculty with or pursuing an MEd in their departments. Survey results indicated that such training is valued by both department chairs and residency directors. Given the time and expense involved in obtaining an MEd, awareness of these data may be helpful to those considering pursuing, offering, or requiring such training.

scholarly journals Contemporary Opinions on Intraoperative Facial Nerve Monitoring

OTO Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473974X1879180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul W. Gidley ◽  
Jennifer Maw ◽  
Bruce Gantz ◽  
David Kaylie ◽  
Paul Lambert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Facial Nerve ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Nerve Monitoring ◽  
Facial Nerve Monitoring ◽  
Residency Program Directors ◽  
Question Survey

Objective To examine the current trend in intraoperative facial nerve monitoring (IOFNM) training, performance, and reimbursement by subspecialists. Study Design Cross-sectional survey of the American Neurotology Society, American Otological Society, American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology, and program directors of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery programs accredited by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education. Setting American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Intraoperative Nerve Monitoring Task Force. Subjects and Methods The task force developed 2 surveys, which were implemented through Surveymonkey.com: (1) a 10-question survey sent to 1506 members of the societies listed to determine IOFNM practice and reimbursement patterns and (2) a 10-question survey sent to the 107 accredited US otolaryngology residency program directors to examine the state of resident training on facial nerve monitoring. Results Response rates were 18% for practicing physicians and 15% for residency program directors. The majority agreed that IOFNM was indicated for most otologic and neurotologic procedures. In addition to facial nerve monitoring, facial nerve stimulation was used in complex skull base and temporal bone procedures. When queried about reimbursement by Medicare, only 4.4% of surgeons responded that they received reimbursement. Program directors indicated universal exposure of residents to IOFNM, with 61% of programs giving residents formal training. Conclusions IOFNM is widely used among otologists and neurotologists in the United States. The majority of residents receive formal training, and all residents are exposed to the setup, use, monitoring, and troubleshooting of the device. Reimbursement for IOFNM is reported by a paucity of those surveyed.

scholarly journals Questions Remain about Whether EBM Competencies Learned in Medical School are Retained in Residency

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 111
Author(s):  
Suzanne Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Medicine Clerkship ◽  
The Third ◽  
Journal Clubs ◽  
Residency Program Directors ◽  
The Impact

Objective – To assess medical graduates’ use of evidence based medicine (EBM) in residency, self-perception of EBM skills, attitudes toward EBM, and the impact of a formal EBM curriculum in their third undergraduate year. Design – A longitudinal follow-up study by self-administered questionnaire. Setting – Internal medicine residency programs in US hospitals. Subjects – A convenience sample of 2001 and 2002 graduates of the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria (UICOM-P) (n=78), and their respective residency program directors (n=72). Methods – A student graduate questionnaire (SGQ) was sent to all members of UICOM-P’s 2001 and 2002 graduating classes who had completed the EBM course during their M-3 Internal Medicine clerkship. A program director questionnaire (PDQ), similar to the SGQ, was sent to the graduates’ residency program directors. The research instrument was tested with a pilot group prior to use, but not validated. The questionnaires consisted of 4 main sections. The first section examined formal and informal EBM programs in the graduates’ residency curriculum. The second section consisted of a self-assessment of EBM skills by the residents and an assessment of those skills by their program directors. The third section asked graduates to compare their EBM skills to those of their fellow residents who had not been students at UICOM-P. Similarly, in the third section of the PDQ, program directors were asked to compare the EBM skills of UICOM-P graduates and non-UICOM-P graduates participating in the residency program. The last section concerned professional and demographic characteristics. Copies of the surveys were mailed out to non-responders after 6 weeks. Results were collated but statistical analysis was not applied. Main results – The response rate was 32% for residents and 35% for program directors. The number of incomplete surveys was not reported. Forty-four percent of all respondents reported having a formal EBM curriculum for residents, and 76% reported an informal curriculum. For both formal and informal programs, the most common teaching formats were journal clubs, followed by lectures, teaching rounds, morning reports, bedside consultations, ambulatory clinics and seminars. In section two of the questionnaires, both residents and program directors rated the residents’ EBM skills similarly. However, the residents rated their skills in searching the literature and application of findings to clinical practice higher than the program directors. Program directors also rated the residents’ skills in understanding statistics and tests higher than the residents themselves. Twenty-four percent of both residents and program directors rated the UICOM-P graduates as “very competent” or “extremely competent” in EBM skills (50). Only 35% of program directors and 27% of residents rated the UICOM-P graduates’ EBM skills as “usually better” or “always better” than their peers who were not UICOM-P graduates (50). Conclusion - The authors of this study conclude that, for UICOM-P graduates, “it might be implied from these results that the EBM skills gained during medical school were retained through their medical school graduation and into their residency training” (51). However, this study has methodological weaknesses which make it difficult to draw any definite conclusions from the results.

scholarly journals Payments by Industry to Residency Program Directors in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Stein J. Janssen ◽  
David W.G. Langerhuizen ◽  
Gino M.M.J. Kerkhoffs ◽  
David Ring
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Residency Program Directors

Present Status of Autonomy in Surgical Residency—a Program Director's Perspective

2015 ◽  
Vol 81 (8) ◽  
pp. 786-790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitesh Patel ◽  
Jasneet S. Bhullar ◽  
Gokulakkrishna Subhas ◽  
Vijay Mittal
Keyword(s):  
General Surgery ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Surgery Residency ◽  
Surgery Residency Program ◽  
Residency Program Directors ◽  
E Mail

As surgery residents graduate and begin their careers as junior attending surgeons, the question of whether a surgeon can complete a case alone still lingers. Allowing autonomy during residency answers this question. The purpose of this study was to gather input from general surgery residency program directors on how they achieve autonomy for residents in their programs. An online survey of 18 questions was sent to all general surgery residency program directors in the United States between April and June of 2013 via e-mail. Questions were asked regarding classification of autonomy, percentage of case completed by the resident independently, and in what area a resident worked with minimal supervision. Of the 202 delivered, 85 program directors were responded (42%). Seventy-eight per cent of programs classified a resident as surgeon junior whether the resident completed more than 50 per cent of the case. Most classified autonomy as either the resident completing >75 per cent of a case (41%) or completing the critical steps of a surgery (41%). Eighty-eight per cent stated that chief residents completed the majority of cases under supervision, whereas only 12 per cent stated the chief had autonomy in the operating room and also acted as teaching assistant. While, 60 per cent stated their chief residents did not work in any area of the hospital independently. Despite differences in how autonomy is defined among programs, most program directors feel that their chief residents do not achieve complete autonomy. Programs should allow their residents to work in a progressive responsibility as they progress into their fourth and fifth years of residency to achieve autonomy.

scholarly journals What Training Is Needed in the Fourth Year of Medical School? Views of Residency Program Directors

2009 ◽  
Vol 84 (7) ◽  
pp. 823-829 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Lyss-Lerman ◽  
Arianne Teherani ◽  
Eva Aagaard ◽  
Helen Loeser ◽  
Molly Cooke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Residency Program Directors

Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics Leadership Roles in Academic Military Treatment Facilities by Subspecialty and Gender

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M Foglia ◽  
Alison L Batig
Keyword(s):  
Residency Program ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Women In Leadership ◽  
Leadership Roles ◽  
Leadership Positions ◽  
Treatment Facilities ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Residency Program Directors ◽  
Military Treatment Facilities

ABSTRACT Introduction Gender distribution in academic ob-gyn leadership positions has previously been examined in the civilian sector, but not in military medicine. Objective To characterize the distribution of department-level leadership positions by gender and subspecialty in academic military facilities in comparison to those reported in the civilian sector. Methods This is an observational cross-sectional study. We queried military obstetrics and gynecology (ob-gyn) specialty consultants, for title and gender of personnel assigned to academic military treatment facilities. Roles were characterized by gender and subspecialty, and the proportion of female leaders was compared to published civilian leadership data. Results Women comprised 25% of Department Chairs, 45% of Assistant Chairs, and 42% of Division Directors. In educational leadership roles, women comprised 25% of Residency Program Directors, 0% of Fellowship Directors, and 62% of medical Student Clerkship Directors. Female department chairs were most often uro-gynecologists (44%) followed by specialists in ob-gyn (37%). Most female residency program directors were specialists in general obstetrics and gynecology. The proportion of women in leadership roles in military departments was not different than in the civilian sector. Conclusion In contrast to civilian academic leadership positions, Department Chairs were most likely to be uro-gynecologists. Similar to civilian programs, women remain underrepresented as chairs, Assistant Chairs, Fellowship Directors, and Division Directors and similarly represented as Residency Program Directors. Despite a smaller pool of women available to fill academic leadership positions in military ob-gyn departments, the proportion of women in leadership roles reaches parity with the civilian sector. This suggests that a greater proportion of women rise to leadership positions in military academic ob-gyn departments than in the civilian sector.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document