Assessing Invasive Coronary Angiography Interpretation Education and Resources.

Abstract

Background: There is a surprising lack of research surrounding effective teaching and learning methodologies in cardiology, especially in invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Therefore, a survey study was designed to assess perceived gaps in education in trainees' interpretation of ICA and available resources.

Methods: A 20-question survey was distributed via an online survey platform disseminated through a CardioNerds email newsletter and social media. The intended audience included medical trainees and medical students through to subspecialty fellows.

Results: The survey received 144 responses and 36% (n=52) said they anticipated working in interventional cardiology in future. Most participants (n=108; 77%) recorded more than 4 weeks of in-person experience in the cardiac catheterization laboratory per year; 35% (n=49) spent 4-12 weeks per year and 31% (n=44) spent 13-24 weeks per year. Most participants felt moderately or less comfortable interpreting coronary angiography. The most used resource was on-the-job training (n=102; 73%), followed by online resources (n=84; 60%) and textbooks (n=54; 39%). Over half of participants agreed that this knowledge might have changed or might still have the potential to change their career choice.

Conclusion: The results suggest that most students/trainees use on-the-job training to learn ICA, most were not comfortable interpreting ICA independently, and a better understanding of ICA might affect a student or trainee's choice of specialty. These results imply a need not only for dedicated educational time, but also for the creation of modern learning resources.