A Survey of Program Directors on Procedural Competence and Volume in the US Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowships.

IF 3.3 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Enambir Josan, Nicholas Pastis, Jing Peng, Jianing Ma, Kamran Mahmood, Mauricio Danckers, Christian Ghattas, Alberto Revelo, Jasleen Pannu
{"title":"A Survey of Program Directors on Procedural Competence and Volume in the US Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowships.","authors":"Enambir Josan, Nicholas Pastis, Jing Peng, Jianing Ma, Kamran Mahmood, Mauricio Danckers, Christian Ghattas, Alberto Revelo, Jasleen Pannu","doi":"10.1097/LBR.0000000000001004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the United States, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) fellowship training traditionally requires performing a minimum number of bronchoscopy and pleural procedures to be deemed competent. However, expert panel recommendations favor assessments based on skill and knowledge. PCCM trainees have a variable exposure to the advanced procedures in the presence of interventional pulmonary (IP) fellowships, so we surveyed the PCCM program directors (PD) across the United States to assess the procedural volume and competency of their fellows.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Survey invitations were emailed between April 2022 and May 2022, and responses were collected from PCCM fellowship programs. The PD assessed the competency and volume of procedures performed by PCCM fellows at the end of training. The primary objective was to determine the effect of IP fellowship or IP faculty on fellows' procedural competency. The secondary objective was to assess the same impact on procedural volume.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey response rate was 41.9% (n=109/260) with an average of 4.23 fellows/program (95% CI: 3.9-4.6). 74.5% (73/98) programs reported having access to IP faculty, while 26.5% (26/98) had an AABIP-accredited IP fellowship. No significant difference was noted for procedural competency or volume in programs with or without an IP fellowship or IP faculty during training. Most programs reported that PCCM fellows do not perform advanced bronchoscopy procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An IP fellowship or IP faculty at a PCCM training institution did not appear to influence the PD-assessed volume or competency of common bronchoscopy and pleural procedures performed by fellows.</p>","PeriodicalId":15268,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology","volume":"32 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000001004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the United States, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) fellowship training traditionally requires performing a minimum number of bronchoscopy and pleural procedures to be deemed competent. However, expert panel recommendations favor assessments based on skill and knowledge. PCCM trainees have a variable exposure to the advanced procedures in the presence of interventional pulmonary (IP) fellowships, so we surveyed the PCCM program directors (PD) across the United States to assess the procedural volume and competency of their fellows.

Methods: Survey invitations were emailed between April 2022 and May 2022, and responses were collected from PCCM fellowship programs. The PD assessed the competency and volume of procedures performed by PCCM fellows at the end of training. The primary objective was to determine the effect of IP fellowship or IP faculty on fellows' procedural competency. The secondary objective was to assess the same impact on procedural volume.

Results: The survey response rate was 41.9% (n=109/260) with an average of 4.23 fellows/program (95% CI: 3.9-4.6). 74.5% (73/98) programs reported having access to IP faculty, while 26.5% (26/98) had an AABIP-accredited IP fellowship. No significant difference was noted for procedural competency or volume in programs with or without an IP fellowship or IP faculty during training. Most programs reported that PCCM fellows do not perform advanced bronchoscopy procedures.

Conclusion: An IP fellowship or IP faculty at a PCCM training institution did not appear to influence the PD-assessed volume or competency of common bronchoscopy and pleural procedures performed by fellows.

程序能力和体积在美国肺病和重症监护奖学金项目主任的调查。
背景:在美国,肺部和重症监护医学(PCCM)奖学金培训传统上要求进行最少数量的支气管镜检查和胸膜手术才能被认为是合格的。然而,专家小组的建议更倾向于基于技能和知识的评估。PCCM受训者在介入肺(IP)研究人员在场的情况下,有不同程度的接触高级程序,因此我们调查了美国的PCCM项目主任(PD),以评估他们的同伴的程序数量和能力。方法:在2022年4月至2022年5月期间通过电子邮件发送调查邀请,并从PCCM奖学金项目中收集回复。PD在培训结束时评估了PCCM研究员的能力和执行程序的数量。主要目的是确定知识产权奖学金或知识产权教员对研究员程序能力的影响。次要目的是评估对手术量的影响。结果:调查回复率为41.9% (n=109/260),平均4.23名研究员/项目(95% CI: 3.9-4.6)。74.5%(73/98)的项目报告有知识产权教师,26.5%(26/98)的项目有aabip认证的知识产权奖学金。在培训期间,在有或没有知识产权奖学金或知识产权教员的项目中,程序能力或数量没有显著差异。大多数项目报告说,PCCM研究员不进行先进的支气管镜检查。结论:PCCM培训机构的IP研究员或IP教员似乎不会影响pd评估的容积或研究员进行普通支气管镜检查和胸膜手术的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
121
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信