Dataset Information

Oncology education for family medicine residents: a national needs assessment survey.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This study aimed to determine the current state of oncology education in Canadian family medicine postgraduate medical education programs (FM PGME) and examine opinions regarding optimal oncology education in these programs. METHODS:A survey was designed to evaluate ideal and current oncology teaching, educational topics, objectives, and competencies in FM PGMEs. The survey was sent to Canadian family medicine (FM) residents and program directors (PDs). RESULTS:In total, 150 residents and 17 PDs affiliated with 16 of 17 Canadian medical schools completed the survey. The majority indicated their programs do not have a mandatory clinical rotation in oncology (79% residents, 88% PDs). Low rates of residents (7%) and PDs (13%) reported FM residents being adequately prepared for their role in caring for cancer patients (p?=?0.03). Residents and PDs believed the most optimal method of teaching oncology is through clinical exposure (65% residents, 80% PDs). Residents and PDs agreed the most important topics to learn (rated ?4.7 on 5-point Likert scale) were: performing pap smears, cancer screening/prevention, breaking bad news, and approach to patient with increased cancer risk. According to residents, other important topics such as appropriate cancer patient referrals, managing cancer complications and post-treatment surveillance were only taught at frequencies of 52, 40 and 36%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Current FM PGME oncology education is suboptimal, although the degree differs in the opinion of residents and PDs. This study identified topics and methods of education which could be focussed upon to improve FM oncology education.

SUBMITTER: Yip SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7457241 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oncology education for family medicine residents: a national needs assessment survey.

Yip Steven M SM Meyers Daniel E DE Sisler Jeff J Wycliffe-Jones Keith K Kucharski Edward E Elser Christine C Temple-Oberle Claire C Spadafora Silvana S Ingledew Paris-Ann PA Giuliani Meredith M Kuruvilla Sara S Sumar Nureen N Tam Vincent C VC

BMC medical education 20200827 1

<h4>Background</h4>This study aimed to determine the current state of oncology education in Canadian family medicine postgraduate medical education programs (FM PGME) and examine opinions regarding optimal oncology education in these programs.<h4>Methods</h4>A survey was designed to evaluate ideal and current oncology teaching, educational topics, objectives, and competencies in FM PGMEs. The survey was sent to Canadian family medicine (FM) residents and program directors (PDs).<h4>Results</h4>I ...[more]

PMID: 32854702

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRadiology training is an important component of emergency medicine (EM) education, but its delivery has been variable. Program directors have reported a lack of radiology skills in incoming interns. A needs assessment is a crucial first step toward improving radiology education among EM residencies. Our objective was to explore the current state of radiology education in EM residency programs.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey study of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited EM programs in the United States. Program leadership completed an online survey consisting of multiple choice, Likert scale, and free-response items. We calculated and reported descriptive statistics.ResultsOf eligible EM programs, 142/252 (56%) completed the survey including 105 postgraduate year (PGY) 1-3 and 36 PGY 1-4 programs. One respondent opted out of answering demographic questions. 23/141 (16%) were from the Western region, 29/141 (21%) were from the North Central region, 14/141 (10%) were from the South-Central region, 28/141 (20%) were from the Southeast region, and 47/141 (33%) were from the Northeast region. A total of 88/142 (62%) of responding programs did not have formal radiology instruction. Of the education that is provided, 127/142 (89%) provide it via didactics/lectures and 115/142 (81%) rely on instruction during clinical shifts. Only 51/142 (36%) provide asynchronous opportunities, and 23/142 (16%) have a dedicated radiology rotation. The majority of respondents reported spending 0-2 hours per month on radiology instruction (108/142; 76%); 95/141 (67%) reported that EM faculty "often" or "always" provide radiology instruction; 134/142 (95%), felt that it was "extremely" or "very important" for ED providers to be able to independently interpret radiograph results; and 129/142 (90.84%) either "sometimes" or "always" rely on their independent radiograph interpretations to make clinical decisions. The radiology studies identified as most important to be able to independently interpret were radiographs obtained for lines/tubes, chest radiographs, and radiographs obtained for musculoskeletal-related complaints.ConclusionA minority of EM residency programs have formal instruction in radiology despite the majority of responding program leadership believing that these are important skills. The most important curricular areas were identified. These results may inform the development of formal radiology curricula in EM graduate medical education.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is an increasing number of pediatric urgent care centers that are largely staffed by pediatric residency graduates. It is unclear if pediatric residency adequately prepares a physician to fully and successfully provide care in an urgent care setting. The goal of this study is to conduct an assessment of urgent care directors' perceptions of recent pediatric residency graduates' preparedness to successfully provide pediatric urgent care after graduation. METHODS:This is a 2018 cross-sectional survey of all pediatric emergency medicine division chiefs in the United States and all pediatric urgent care directors who are members of the Society for Pediatric Urgent Care. An electronic survey was distributed consisting of eight multiple choice questions regarding perceived preparedness and knowledge gaps of recent pediatric residency graduates for independent practice in urgent care. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze results and qualitative data were analyzed via an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS:Forty-two percent (65/154) of surveys were completed. No respondents believed that a recent pediatric residency graduate would be adequately prepared to independently practice in a pediatric urgent care and 81% of respondents recommended some additional training. Most respondents described this training as important (46%) or very important (35%). Most respondents recommended between 6 months and 1 year as the appropriate amount of time to achieve competency. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the growing number pediatric residency graduates staffing pediatric urgent care centers, the majority of surveyed pediatric emergency medicine division chiefs and pediatric urgent care directors do not think that pediatric residency adequately prepares graduates to successfully provide urgent care to pediatric patients. We recommend further exploration of gaps in knowledge of recent pediatric residency graduates as a next step towards developing systems for further training for pediatric residency graduates to gain competency in urgent care management.

Dataset Information

Oncology education for family medicine residents: a national needs assessment survey.

Publications

Oncology education for family medicine residents: a national needs assessment survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets