...
首页> 外文期刊>Pediatric rheumatology online journal >Current pediatric rheumatology fellowship training in the United States: what fellows actually do
【24h】

Current pediatric rheumatology fellowship training in the United States: what fellows actually do

机译:美国目前的儿科风湿病研究金培训:研究人员实际从事的工作

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background Pediatric Rheumatology (PR) training in the US has existed since the 1970’s. In the early 1990’s, the training was formalized into a three year training program by the American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Pediatrics (ABP). Programs have been evaluated every 5 years by the ACGME to remain credentialed and graduates had to pass a written exam to be certified. There has been no report yet that details not just what training fellows should receive in the 32 US PR training programs but what training the trainees are actually receiving. Methods After a literature search, a survey was constructed by the authors, then reviewed and revised with the help members of the Executive Committee of the Rheumatology Section of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) using the Delphi technique. IRB approval was obtained from the AAP and Nationwide Children’s Hospital. The list of fellows was obtained from the ABP and the survey sent out to 81 current fellows or fellows just having finished. One repeat e-mail was sent out. Results Forty-seven fellows returned the survey by e-mail (58%) with the majority being 3rd year fellows or fellows who had completed their training. The demographics were as expected with females?>?males and Caucasians>?>?non-Caucasians. Training appeared quite appropriate in the number of ??day continuity clinics per week (1–2, 71%), number of patients per clinic (4–5, 60%), inpatient exposure (2–4 inpatients per week, 40%; 5 or greater, 33%), and weekday/weekend call. Fellows attended more didactic activities than required, had ample time for research (54% 21-60/hours per week), and had multiple teaching opportunities. Seventy-seven percent of the trainees presented abstracts at national meetings, 41% had publication. Disease exposure was excellent and joint injection experience sufficient. Conclusions Most US PR training programs as a whole provide an appropriate training by current ACGME, American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and ABP standards in: 1) number of continuity clinics; 2) sufficient on-call activities for weekday nights and weekends; 3) joint interdisciplinary conferences; 4) electives 5) didactic activities; 6) scholarly activities; and 7) exposure to diverse rheumatology diseases. Areas of concern were uniformity & standardization of training, need for a customized PR training curriculum, more mentorship, free electives, training in musculoskeletal ultrasound, need for a hands-on OSCE certification exam and more exposure to ACGME competencies.
机译:自1970年代以来,在美国已有背景风湿病(PR)培训。在1990年代初期,美国研究生医学教育学院(ACGME)和美国儿科学委员会(ABP)将培训正式定为三年培训计划。 ACGME每5年对课程进行评估,以保持其资格证书,并且毕业生必须通过笔试才能获得认证。尚未有报告详细说明不仅培训学员应该在32种美国PR培训计划中接受的培训,而且还详细说明了受训人员实际接受的培训。方法经过文献检索后,由作者进行了调查,然后由美国儿科学会(AAP)风湿病学分会执行委员会的成员使用Delphi技术进行了审查和修订。 IRB已获得AAP和全国儿童医院的批准。研究员名单从ABP获得,调查发送给了81名现任研究员或刚毕业的研究员。已发送一封重复的电子邮件。结果47位研究员通过电子邮件返回了调查(58%),其中大多数是3年级研​​究员或已完成培训的研究员。人口统计学与女性,男性和高加索族,非高加索人一样。培训似乎在每周的连续日间诊所数量(1-2、71%),每个诊所的患者数量(4-5、60%),住院暴露(每周2-4名患者,40%)方面非常合适; 5或更高(33%),以及工作日/周末致电。研究员参加了比要求更多的教学活动,有充裕的研究时间(54%的人每周21-60 /小时),并且有多次教学机会。 77%的受训者在全国会议上发表了摘要,41%的被发表了。疾病暴露极好,并且有足够的联合注射经验。结论总体上,大多数美国PR培训计划根据当前ACGME,美国风湿病学会(ACR)和ABP标准在以下方面提供了适当的培训:1)连续诊所的数量; 2)在工作日晚上和周末有足够的通话活动; 3)联合跨学科会议; 4)选修课5)教学活动; 6)学术活动; 7)接触各种风湿病。关注的领域包括培训的统一性和标准化,需要定制的PR培训课程,更多的指导,免费的选修课,肌肉骨骼超声培训,需要动手的OSCE认证考试以及更多地接触ACGME能力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号