Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:07:14.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the need for a cardiac morphology curriculum for paediatric cardiology fellows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Lindsay S. Rogers ,
Melissa Klein ,
Jeanne James  and
Michael FitzGerald
Lindsay S. Rogers*
Affiliation:
The Heart Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America
Melissa Klein
Affiliation:
Division of General and Community Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America
Jeanne James
Affiliation:
The Heart Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America
Michael FitzGerald
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America
*
Correspondence to: Lindsay S. Rogers, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Children’s Memorial Herman Hospital, UT Health, 6410 Fannin Street, Suite 425, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Tel: 713-500-5737; Fax: 713-500-5751; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Expert knowledge of cardiac malformations is essential for paediatric cardiologists. Current cardiac morphology fellowship teaching format, content, and nomenclature are left up to the discretion of the individual fellowship programmes. We aimed to assess practices and barriers in morphology education, perceived effectiveness of current curricula, and preferences for a standardised fellow morphology curriculum.

Methods

A web-based survey was developed de novo and administered anonymously via e-mail to all paediatric cardiology fellowship programme directors and associate directors in the United States of America; leaders were asked to forward the survey to fellows.

Results

A total of 35 directors from 32 programmes (51%) and 66 fellows responded. Curriculum formats varied: 28 (88%) programmes utilised pathological specimens, 25 (78%) invited outside faculty, and 16 (50%) utilised external conferences. Director nomenclature preferences were split – 6 (19%) Andersonian, 8 (25%) Van Praaghian, and 18 (56%) mixed. Barriers to morphology education included time and inconsistent nomenclature. One-third of directors reported that <90% of recent fellow graduates had adequate abilities to apply segmental anatomy, identify associated cardiac lesions, or communicate complex CHD. More structured teaching, protected time, and specimens were suggestions to improve curricula. Almost 75% would likely adopt/utilise an online morphology curriculum.

Conclusions

Cardiac morphology training varies in content and format among fellowships. Inconsistent nomenclature exists, and inadequate morphology knowledge is perceived to contribute to communication failures, both have potential patient safety implications. There is an educational need for a common, online cardiac morphology curriculum that could allow for fellow assessment of competency and contribute to more standardised communication in the field of paediatric cardiology.

Keywords

Cardiac morphologyfellowship educationeLearningcardiac nomenclature
Type
Original Articles
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , July 2017 , pp. 958 - 966
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lewis, AB, Martin, GR, Bartz, PJ, et al. Task Force 1: pediatric cardiology fellowship training in general cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66: 677–686.Google Scholar
2. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pediatric Cardiology. Retrieved 30 September 2012 from https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/2013-PR-FAQ-PIF/325_cardiology_peds_07012013.pdf.Google Scholar
3. The American Board of Pediatric Content Outline: Pediatric Cardiology 2010. Retrieved 1 December 2014 from https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/pdf/card2010.pdf.Google Scholar
4. Ezon, DS, Goldberg, JF, Kyle, WB. Atlas of Congenital Heart Disease Nomenclature. Ezon Educational Services, Houston, 2015.Google Scholar
5. Jacobs, JP, Constantine, M, Jacobs, ML, Maruszewski, B, Tchervenkov, CI, Lacour-Gayet, FG. Nomenclature and databases – the past, the present, and the future. A primer for the congenital heart surgeon. Pediatr Cardiol 2007; 28: 105–115.Google Scholar
6. Cathchpole, KR, De Leval, MR, Mcewan, A, et al. Patient handover from surgery to intensive care: using Formula 1 pit-stop and aviation models to improve safety and quality. Pediatr Anesth 2007; 17: 470–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Leonard, M, Graham, S, Bonacum, D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13 (Suppl 1): i85–i90.Google Scholar
8. Starmer, AJ, Spector, ND, Srivastava, R, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1803–1812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Eckleberry-Hunt, J, Tucciarone, J. The challenges and opportunities of teaching “generation y”. J Grad Med Educ 2011; 3: 458–461.Google Scholar
10. Kitchin, DR, Applegate, KE. Learning radiology a survey investigating radiology resident use of textbooks, journals and the internet. Acad Radiol 2007; 14: 1113–1120.Google Scholar
11. Hughes, MT. Chapter 3: step 2 targeted needs assessment. In: Kern DE, et al. (ed.) Curriculum Development for Medical Education: A Six Step Approach, 2nd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 2009: 27–42.Google Scholar
12. Patton, M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, 1990.Google Scholar
13. Biemer, PP, Lyberg, LE. The measurement process and its implications for questionnaire design. In: Introduction to Survey Quality. Wiley, Hoboken, 2003: 116–148.Google Scholar
14. Willis, G. Question Appraisal System QAS-99. Research Triangle Institute, Rockville, 1999.Google Scholar
15. Mavroudis, C, Jacobs, J. Congenital heart surgery nomenclature and database project overview and minimum dataset. Ann of Thorac Surg 2000; 69 (Suppl 1): 2–17.Google Scholar
16. Jacobs, JP, Jacobs, ML, Mavroudis, C, et al. Nomenclature and databases for the surgical treatment of congenital disease – an updated primer and analysis of opportunities for improvement. Cardiol Young 2008; 18 (Suppl 2): 38–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Catchpole, KR, Giddings, AEB, deLeval, MR, et al. Identification of systems failures in successful paediatric cardiac surgery. Ergonomics 2006; 49: 567–588.Google Scholar
18. Mayer, RE. Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Pract 2002; 41: 226–232.Google Scholar
19. Abela, J. Adult learning theories and medical education: a review. Malta Med J 2009; 21: 11–18.Google Scholar
20. Srivastava, S, Printz, BF, Geva, T, et al. Task Force 2: pediatric cardiology fellowship training in non-invasive cardiac imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66: 687–698.Google Scholar
21. Seslar, SP, Shepard, CW, Giroud, JM, et al. Lost treasures: a plea for the systematic preservation of cadaveric heart specimens through three-dimensional digital imaging. Cardiol Young 2015; 25: 1457–1459.Google Scholar
22. Oblinger, D, Oblinger, J. Educating the net generation (2005). Retrieved 8 June 2016 from www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/.Google Scholar
23. Prensky, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: do they really think differently? On the Horizon 2001; 9: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rogers supplementary material

Rogers supplementary material 1

Download Rogers supplementary material(File)
File 30.8 KB