Browsing by Subject "ACGME"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Online Program Director Toolbox
    (2020-03-06) Leveque, Emilie; Cico, Stephen John
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Structure and Funding of Clinical Informatics Fellowships: A National Survey of Program Directors
    (Thieme, 2024) Patel, Tushar N.; Chaise, Aaron J.; Hanna, John J.; Patel, Kunal P.; Kochendorfer, Karl M.; Medford, Richard J.; Mize, Dara E.; Melnick, Edward R.; Hron, Jonathan D.; Youens, Kenneth; Pandita, Deepti; Leu, Michael G.; Ator, Gregory A.; Yu, Feliciano; Genes, Nicholas; Baker, Carrie K.; Bell, Douglas S.; Pevnick, Joshua M.; Conrad, Steven A.; Chandawarkar, Aarti R.; Rogers, Kendall M.; Kaelber, David C.; Singh, Ila R.; Levy, Bruce P.; Finnell, John T.; Kannry, Joseph; Pageler, Natalie M.; Mohan, Vishnu; Lehmann, Christoph U.; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: In 2011, the American Board of Medical Specialties established clinical informatics (CI) as a subspecialty in medicine, jointly administered by the American Board of Pathology and the American Board of Preventive Medicine. Subsequently, many institutions created CI fellowship training programs to meet the growing need for informaticists. Although many programs share similar features, there is considerable variation in program funding and administrative structures. Objectives: The aim of our study was to characterize CI fellowship program features, including governance structures, funding sources, and expenses. Methods: We created a cross-sectional online REDCap survey with 44 items requesting information on program administration, fellows, administrative support, funding sources, and expenses. We surveyed program directors of programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education between 2014 and 2021. Results: We invited 54 program directors, of which 41 (76%) completed the survey. The average administrative support received was $27,732/year. Most programs (85.4%) were accredited to have two or more fellows per year. Programs were administratively housed under six departments: Internal Medicine (17; 41.5%), Pediatrics (7; 17.1%), Pathology (6; 14.6%), Family Medicine (6; 14.6%), Emergency Medicine (4; 9.8%), and Anesthesiology (1; 2.4%). Funding sources for CI fellowship program directors included: hospital or health systems (28.3%), clinical departments (28.3%), graduate medical education office (13.2%), biomedical informatics department (9.4%), hospital information technology (9.4%), research and grants (7.5%), and other sources (3.8%) that included philanthropy and external entities. Conclusion: CI fellowships have been established in leading academic and community health care systems across the country. Due to their unique training requirements, these programs require significant resources for education, administration, and recruitment. There continues to be considerable heterogeneity in funding models between programs. Our survey findings reinforce the need for reformed federal funding models for informatics practice and training.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The challenges and opportunities of offering and integrating training in clinical molecular genetics and clinical cytogenetics: A survey of LGG Fellowship Program Directors
    (Elsevier, 2024) Deignan, Joshua L.; Aggarwal, Vimla; Bale, Allen E.; Bellissimo, Daniel B.; Booker, Jessica K.; Cao, Yang; Crooks, Kristy R.; Deak, Kristen L.; Del Gaudio, Daniela; Funke, Birgit; Hoppman, Nicole L.; Horner, Vanessa; Hufnagel, Robert B.; Jackson-Cook, Colleen; Koduru, Prasad; Leung, Marco L.; Li, Shibo; Liu, Pengfei; Mao, Minjie Luo Rong; Mason-Suares, Heather; Mikhail, Fady M.; Moore, Stephen R.; Naeem, Rizwan C.; Pollard, Laura M.; Repnikova, Elena A.; Shao, Lina; Shaw, Brandon M.; Shetty, Shashirekha; Smolarek, Teresa A.; Spiteri, Elizabeth; Van Ziffle, Jessica; Vance, Gail H.; Vnencak-Jones, Cindy L.; Williams, Eli S.; Medical and Molecular Genetics, School of Medicine
    Purpose: The specialty of Laboratory Genetics and Genomics (LGG) was created in 2017 in an effort to reflect the increasing convergence in technologies and approaches between clinical molecular genetics and clinical cytogenetics. However, there has not yet been any formal evaluation of the merging of these disciplines and the challenges faced by Program Directors (PDs) tasked with ensuring the successful training of laboratory geneticists under the new model. Methods: An electronic multi-question Qualtrics survey was created and was sent to the PD for each of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited LGG fellowship programs at the time. The data were collected, and the responses were aggregated for each question. Results: All of the responding PDs had started training at least 1 LGG fellow. PDs noted challenges with funding, staff shortages, molecular/cytogenetics content integration, limited total training time, increased remote work, increased sendout testing, and a lack of prior cytogenetics knowledge among incoming fellows. Conclusion: This survey attempted to assess the challenges that LGG PDs have been facing in offering and integrating clinical molecular genetics and clinical cytogenetics fellowship training. Common challenges between programs were noted, and a set of 6 concluding comments are provided to facilitate future discussion.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Toward Data-Driven Radiology Education—Early Experience Building Multi-Institutional Academic Trainee Interpretation Log Database (MATILDA)
    (Springer, 2016-12) Chen, Po-Hao; Loehfelm, Thomas W.; Kamer, Aaron P.; Lemmon, Andrew B.; Cook, Tessa S.; Kohli, Marc D.; Radiology and Imaging Sciences, School of Medicine
    The residency review committee of the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) collects data on resident exam volume and sets minimum requirements. However, this data is not made readily available, and the ACGME does not share their tools or methodology. It is therefore difficult to assess the integrity of the data and determine if it truly reflects relevant aspects of the resident experience. This manuscript describes our experience creating a multi-institutional case log, incorporating data from three American diagnostic radiology residency programs. Each of the three sites independently established automated query pipelines from the various radiology information systems in their respective hospital groups, thereby creating a resident-specific database. Then, the three institutional resident case log databases were aggregated into a single centralized database schema. Three hundred thirty residents and 2,905,923 radiologic examinations over a 4-year span were catalogued using 11 ACGME categories. Our experience highlights big data challenges including internal data heterogeneity and external data discrepancies faced by informatics researchers.