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

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 educati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cardiology in the young 2017-07, Vol.27 (5), p.958-966
Main Authors: Rogers, Lindsay S., Klein, Melissa, James, Jeanne, FitzGerald, Michael
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anatomy
Cardiology
Children & youth
Core curriculum
Digital literacy
Directors
Education
Emergency medical care
Format
Graduates
Health education
Heart
Heart diseases
Hospitals
Interactive learning
Internet
Lesions
Mail
Medical errors
Morphology
Nomenclature
Original Articles
Patient safety
Pediatrics
Polls & surveys
Scholarships & fellowships
Teaching
Textbooks
World Wide Web
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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. 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. 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
ISSN:1047-9511
1467-1107
DOI:10.1017/S1047951116002481