Impact of Risk and Volume on Procedural Traning of Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellows
PublisherAmerican Thoracic Society
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractBackground: Invasive procedures are a core aspect of pulmonary and critical care practice. Procedures performed in the intensive care unit can be divided into high-risk, low-volume (HRLV) procedures and low-risk, high-volume (LRHV) procedures. HRLV procedures include cricothyroidotomy, pericardiocentesis, Blakemore tube placement, and bronchial blocker placement. LRHV procedures include arterial line placement, central venous catheter placement, thoracentesis, and flexible bronchoscopy. Despite the frequency and importance of procedures in critical care medicine, little is known about the similarities and differences in procedural training between different Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) and Critical Care Medicine (CCM) training programs. Furthermore, differences in procedural training practices for HRLV and LRHV procedures have not previously been described. Objective: To assess procedural training practices in PCCM and CCM fellowship programs in the United States, and compare differences in training between HRLV and LRHV procedures. Methods: A novel survey instrument was developed and disseminated to PCCM and CCM program directors and associate program directors at PCCM and CCM fellowship programs in the United States to assess procedural teaching practices for HRLV and LRHV procedures. Results: The survey was sent to 221 fellowship programs, 168 PCCM and 34 CCM, with 70 unique respondents (31.7% response rate). Of the procedural educational strategies assessed, each strategy was used significantly more frequently for LRHV versus HRLV procedures. The majority of respondents (51.1%) report having no dedicated training for HRLV procedures versus 6.9% reporting no dedicated training for any LRHV procedure (P < 0.001). For HRLV procedures, 76.9% of respondents indicated that there was no set number of procedures required to determine competency, versus 25.3% for LRHV procedures (P < 0.001). For LRHV procedures, fellows were allowed to perform procedures independently without supervision 21.7% of the time versus 3.9% for HRLV procedures (P = 0.004). Program directors’ confidence in their ability to determine fellows’ competence in performing procedures was significantly lower for HRLV versus LRHV versus HRLV procedures (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Significant differences exist in procedural training education for PCCM and CCM fellows for LRHV versus HRLV procedures, and awareness of this discrepancy presents an opportunity to address this educational gap in PCCM and CCM fellowship training.
Rights/TermsCopyright © 2021 by the American Thoracic Society.
Identifier to cite or link to this itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/10713/16488
- Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors' Attitudes toward Training in Medical Education. A Nationwide Survey Study.
- Authors: Richards JB, McCallister JW, Lenz PH
- Issue date: 2016 Apr
- The Effect of the Coronavirus-2019 Pandemic on Pediatric Critical Care Fellowship Training.
- Authors: Silver LJ, Kessel A, Taurassi C, Taylor M
- Issue date: 2022 Mar
- Assessing Competence in Central Venous Catheter Placement by Pediatric Critical Care Fellows: A National Survey Study.
- Authors: Boyer DL, Zurca AD, Mason K, Mink R, Petrillo T, Schuette J, Tcharmtchi MH, Winkler M, Fleming GM, Turner DA, Education in Pediatric Intensive Care (E.P.I.C.) Investigators
- Issue date: 2019 Aug
- Pulmonary Critical Care Fellows' Use of and Self-reported Barriers to Learning Bedside Ultrasound During Training: Results of a National Survey.
- Authors: Brady AK, Spitzer CR, Kelm D, Brosnahan SB, Latifi M, Burkart KM
- Issue date: 2021 Jul
- Graduating Fellows' Procedural Comfort Level With Pulmonary Critical Care Procedures.
- Authors: Knox DB, Wong WW
- Issue date: 2019 Oct