Dataset Information

Clinical Skills Evaluation in Neurology, Child Neurology and Psychiatry: Program Directors' Perspective and Future Opportunities.

ABSTRACT:

Background

When the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) eliminated the oral segment of the board-certification examination, it began requiring in-training assessments termed Clinical Skill Evaluations (CSEs).

Objective

This study describes the experience of residency program directors (PDs) with CSEs and identifies opportunities for improvement.

Methods

A 23-question survey was administered electronically to neurology, child neurology, and psychiatry PDs assessing their CSE testing procedures in April 2019. Data from the ABPN preCERT® Credentialing System CSE was analyzed to corroborate the survey results.

Results

A total of 439 PDs were surveyed. The overall response rate was approximately 40% with a similar response across the 3 specialties. Overall, there was a strong enthusiasm for CSEs as they captured the essence of the physician-patient relationship. Most PDs encouraged trainees to attempt CSEs early in their training though the completion time frame varied by specialty. Approximately 57% of psychiatry residencies offered formal, in-person faculty training while less than one-fourth of neurology and child neurology programs offered such a program. Most PDs are interested in a faculty development course to ensure a standardized CSE testing process at their institution.

Conclusions

This survey confirmed earlier findings that CSEs are usually implemented early in the course of residency training and that most PDs think it captures the essence of the physician-patient relationship. While few residencies offer a CSE training course, there is widespread support for a formal approach to faculty development and this offers a specific opportunity for CSE improvement in the future.

SUBMITTER: Abbatemarco JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8368539 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo ascertain the current status of global health training and humanitarian relief opportunities in US and Canadian postgraduate neurology programs.BackgroundThere is a growing interest among North American trainees to pursue medical electives in low- and middle-income countries. Such training opportunities provide many educational and humanitarian benefits but also pose several challenges related to organization, human resources, funding, and trainee and patient safety. The current support and engagement of neurology postgraduate training programs for trainees to pursue international rotations is unknown.MethodsA survey was distributed to all program directors in the United States and Canada (December 2012-February 2013) through the American Academy of Neurology to assess the training opportunities, institutional partnerships, and support available for international neurology electives.ResultsApproximately half of responding programs (53%) allow residents to pursue global health-related electives, and 11% reported that at least 1 trainee participated in humanitarian relief during training (survey response rate 61%, 143/234 program directors). Canadian programs were more likely to allow residents to pursue international electives than US programs (10/11, 91% vs 65/129, 50%, p = 0.023). The number of trainees participating in international electives was low: 0%-9% of residents (55% of programs) and 10%-19% of residents (21% of programs). Lack of funding was the most commonly cited reason for residents not participating in global health electives. If funding was available, 93% of program directors stated there would be time for residents to participate. Most program directors (75%) were interested in further information on global health electives.ConclusionsIn spite of high perceived interest, only half of US neurology training programs include international electives, mostly due to a reported lack of funding. By contrast, the majority of Canadian programs that responded allow international electives, likely due to clearer guidelines from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada compared to the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education. However, the number of both Canadian and US neurology trainees venturing abroad remains a minority. Most program directors are interested in learning more information related to global health electives for neurology residents.