TY - JOUR
T1 - The future of fellowship training in clinical cardiac electrophysiology
T2 - Program directors' perspective 2008
AU - Chugh, Sumeet S.
AU - Donahue, J. Kevin
AU - Kaufman, Elizabeth S.
AU - Link, Mark S.
AU - Markowitz, Steven M.
AU - Narayan, Sanjiv M.
AU - Quan, Kara J.
AU - Tomaselli, Gordon F.
AU - Verdino, Ralph
N1 - Funding Information:
Of the respondents (n = 51), the vast majority (50; 98%) thought that 1 year of EP training was not sufficient to learn all of clinical and procedural EP. However, there was no agreement on how to extend the EP fellowship, with 23 (46%) wishing for a 3-year internal medicine (IM) + 2-year cardiology + 2-year CCEP (7 years), 17 (34%) wanting 3-year IM + 3-year cardiology + 2-year CCEP (8 years), and 10 (20%) wanting 2-year IM + 3-year cardiology + 2-year CCEP (7 years). Of 49 respondents, 64% did not think a reduction in cardiology/CCEP training to the 2 + 2 model would be possible with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education cardiology requirements of 24 clinical months, 6 months of research, and level 2 in echo and nuclear medicine (10 months total). Funding of a second year of fellowship was thought probably difficult for 30%; 44% thought it would be easy, and the remaining 26% stated that they did not know. Respondents also ranked the relative importance of specific funding sources for their programs ( Figure 3 ). Funding arranged by nonindustry grants remained the leading source of funding. However, among the specific funding sources, local hospital/institution sources were ranked highest, followed closely by industry funding.
Funding Information:
A very significant issue regarding any proposal to lengthen fellowship training is that many program directors expressed concern regarding their ability to fund a second year of CCEP. Funding of CCEP fellowships from industry grants was almost equivalent to programs being funded by parent institutions.
Copyright:
Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2009/11
Y1 - 2009/11
N2 - Background: At the Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology (CCEP) program directors' annual meeting during the 2008 scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, a consensus emerged for an urgent need to strengthen and rejuvenate fellowship training in clinical cardiac electrophysiology. Objective: A writing group of the Heart Rhythm Society Clinical Research and Training Committee was charged with defining these issues. Methods: A comprehensive questionnaire designed by the writing group was used to conduct an on-line survey of the 101 CCEP program directors in the United States. Data collected included types of programs, current status of programs, duration of fellowship, teaching responsibilities of faculty, responsibilities of fellows, and volume of electrophysiology procedures. Survey responses were collated and analyzed by the writing group. Results: Given the rapid evolution and increased complexity of current electrophysiology procedures, program directors were of the opinion that 1 year of clinical electrophysiology training may no longer be adequate. A need to strengthen both research and didactic training components of fellowship training was also acknowledged. The number of electrophysiology procedures performed by trainees varied greatly between programs, and standardization of didactic training and procedural volume would be welcomed. Recent trends were recognized that indicate the need for a detailed national work-force analysis in CCEP. Conclusion: Through this national survey, program directors identified specific areas of need for standardization and strengthening of current fellowship training in CCEP. Based on these, specific measures can be taken to ensure the future of CCEP training.
AB - Background: At the Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology (CCEP) program directors' annual meeting during the 2008 scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, a consensus emerged for an urgent need to strengthen and rejuvenate fellowship training in clinical cardiac electrophysiology. Objective: A writing group of the Heart Rhythm Society Clinical Research and Training Committee was charged with defining these issues. Methods: A comprehensive questionnaire designed by the writing group was used to conduct an on-line survey of the 101 CCEP program directors in the United States. Data collected included types of programs, current status of programs, duration of fellowship, teaching responsibilities of faculty, responsibilities of fellows, and volume of electrophysiology procedures. Survey responses were collated and analyzed by the writing group. Results: Given the rapid evolution and increased complexity of current electrophysiology procedures, program directors were of the opinion that 1 year of clinical electrophysiology training may no longer be adequate. A need to strengthen both research and didactic training components of fellowship training was also acknowledged. The number of electrophysiology procedures performed by trainees varied greatly between programs, and standardization of didactic training and procedural volume would be welcomed. Recent trends were recognized that indicate the need for a detailed national work-force analysis in CCEP. Conclusion: Through this national survey, program directors identified specific areas of need for standardization and strengthening of current fellowship training in CCEP. Based on these, specific measures can be taken to ensure the future of CCEP training.
KW - Clinical cardiac electrophysiology
KW - Education
KW - Fellowship
KW - Survey
KW - Training
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350445848&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350445848&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2009.07.044
DO - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2009.07.044
M3 - Article
C2 - 19879538
AN - SCOPUS:70350445848
SN - 1547-5271
VL - 6
SP - 1606
EP - 1612
JO - Heart Rhythm
JF - Heart Rhythm
IS - 11
ER -