Evidence-based reconstruction of medical toxicology fellowship orientation curriculum using a modified Delphi approach.

IF 3.3
Lynne Rosenberg, Jacob Altholz, Joshua C Black, Jennie A Buchanan, Mark William Simon
{"title":"Evidence-based reconstruction of medical toxicology fellowship orientation curriculum using a modified Delphi approach.","authors":"Lynne Rosenberg, Jacob Altholz, Joshua C Black, Jennie A Buchanan, Mark William Simon","doi":"10.1080/15563650.2026.2632180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Currently, there are no evidence-based studies on orientation curriculum development for medical toxicology fellows. Fellows come from diverse training backgrounds yet are expected to manage a broad spectrum of toxicologic presentations in various practice environments. Standardized orientation curricula in other specialties have demonstrated improved comfort and knowledge of trainees. Our objective was to conduct an evidence-based reconstruction of orientation and study its impact on new fellows.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We utilized a modified Delphi approach at a single toxicology fellowship. Participants were considered experts if they had graduated fellowship training or worked in fellowship administration. Second-year fellows were also included. A panel was convened to identify areas for improvement, followed by a survey to assess consensus using a Likert scale. The survey had four sections: core content, logistics, expectations, and wellness. Consensus was categorized as strong (≥75%), weak (50-74%), or non-consensus (<50%). A second panel resolved non-consensus items. After orientation was reconstructed, new fellows' knowledge and comfort was assessed with pre- and post-tests before and after orientation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve experts participated in the panel process, followed by eight in the second panel. Thirty toxins and toxicology concepts met consensus as important to cover during orientation. There was strong consensus to cover most logistical, expectation, and wellness topics. After reconstruction, the three new fellows showed improved medical knowledge, comfort, and policy familiarity.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The modified Delphi process highlighted topics most important to cover at the beginning of fellowship. Important toxins fell into two main categories: common exposures and rare exposures requiring emergent action. Adding logistic, expectation, and wellness topics improved fellow experience. This intervention employed concepts central to adult learning theory.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study suggests there is consensus amongst expert toxicologists regarding essential topics during medical toxicology fellow orientation. This pilot data is a framework for developing an evidence-based, specialty-specific orientation curriculum.</p>","PeriodicalId":520593,"journal":{"name":"Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.)","volume":" ","pages":"648-656"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2026.2632180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Currently, there are no evidence-based studies on orientation curriculum development for medical toxicology fellows. Fellows come from diverse training backgrounds yet are expected to manage a broad spectrum of toxicologic presentations in various practice environments. Standardized orientation curricula in other specialties have demonstrated improved comfort and knowledge of trainees. Our objective was to conduct an evidence-based reconstruction of orientation and study its impact on new fellows.

Methods: We utilized a modified Delphi approach at a single toxicology fellowship. Participants were considered experts if they had graduated fellowship training or worked in fellowship administration. Second-year fellows were also included. A panel was convened to identify areas for improvement, followed by a survey to assess consensus using a Likert scale. The survey had four sections: core content, logistics, expectations, and wellness. Consensus was categorized as strong (≥75%), weak (50-74%), or non-consensus (<50%). A second panel resolved non-consensus items. After orientation was reconstructed, new fellows' knowledge and comfort was assessed with pre- and post-tests before and after orientation.

Results: Twelve experts participated in the panel process, followed by eight in the second panel. Thirty toxins and toxicology concepts met consensus as important to cover during orientation. There was strong consensus to cover most logistical, expectation, and wellness topics. After reconstruction, the three new fellows showed improved medical knowledge, comfort, and policy familiarity.

Discussion: The modified Delphi process highlighted topics most important to cover at the beginning of fellowship. Important toxins fell into two main categories: common exposures and rare exposures requiring emergent action. Adding logistic, expectation, and wellness topics improved fellow experience. This intervention employed concepts central to adult learning theory.

Conclusions: Our study suggests there is consensus amongst expert toxicologists regarding essential topics during medical toxicology fellow orientation. This pilot data is a framework for developing an evidence-based, specialty-specific orientation curriculum.

基于证据的医学毒理学研究人员导向课程重建,采用改进的德尔菲法。
导言:目前,医学毒理学研究人员的入职培训课程开发尚无循证研究。研究员来自不同的培训背景,但期望在各种实践环境中管理广泛的毒理学报告。其他专业的标准化培训课程已经证明了受训人员的舒适度和知识水平的提高。我们的目标是进行以证据为基础的培训重建,并研究其对新研究员的影响。方法:我们在单一毒理学研究中使用了改进的德尔菲方法。如果参与者毕业于研究金培训或在研究金管理部门工作,则被视为专家。二年级的研究员也包括在内。召集了一个小组来确定需要改进的领域,随后进行了一项调查,以使用李克特量表评估共识。该调查分为四个部分:核心内容、物流、期望和健康。共识分为强(≥75%)、弱(50-74%)或非共识(结果:12位专家参与了专家组过程,随后8位专家参加了第二次专家组。30个毒素和毒理学概念被一致认为是在介绍期间重要的内容。有强烈的共识,涵盖大多数后勤,期望和健康的主题。重建后,三位新研究员表现出更好的医学知识、舒适度和政策熟悉度。讨论:修改后的德尔菲过程突出了在奖学金开始时最重要的主题。重要的毒素主要分为两类:常见接触和需要紧急行动的罕见接触。添加逻辑、期望和健康主题改善了同事的体验。这种干预采用了成人学习理论的核心概念。结论:我们的研究表明,在医学毒理学研究员取向中,专家毒理学家对基本主题有共识。该试点数据是一个框架,用于开发循证的、针对特定专业的定向课程。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书