An important transition is under way in US diagnostic radiology residency training. Every program in the country is now composed of groups of upper-level residents following the traditional curriculum and lower-level residents following the new model. This transition has been the topic of lively and constructive conversation, particularly at the annual meetings of the Association of University Radiologists .
In 2007, the Association of Program Directors in Radiology created the Residency Restructuring Committee to carefully review the changes and anticipate their impact on training programs. Its roster includes directors of both large and small programs, as well as members representing the American Board of Radiology and the Diagnostic Radiology Residency Review Committee. The committee’s assessment of the challenges and opportunities of the new curriculum were published in the July 2010 issue of the Journal of the American College of Radiology .
If we liken the elements of the new curriculum to pieces of a puzzle, fitting them together poses different challenges to different programs. In every case, however, residents have just 36 months to prepare for the new core exam. One key to negotiating this transition successfully is to assemble the pieces in a way takes account of each program’s specific circumstances. A “one-size-fits-all” approach simply will not work. Yet learning from the experiences of other programs can prove illuminating, and it is in this spirit that we offer some words of advice from Indiana University .
Self-examination
Self-examination is crucial. To adapt successfully, we must first know our own program. What are its strengths? What are its weaknesses? This applies not only to residents’ experiences but also to the composition and interests of the faculty. Where do residents perform particularly well? Where do they struggle? In part, we can look at performance on the American College of Radiology in-training exams and the American Board of Radiology exams, but test scores alone do not fully capture what residents need to learn. What departmental sections have particularly robust and engaged faculty members? And what are the net effects of other educational activities, such as fellowship programs? In what areas might fellows tend to have a positive or negative impact on residents’ experiences?
The key to the self-examination is honesty. We need to be honest with ourselves, and we need to be sure that we listen widely, encouraging residents present and past to share their frank impressions. We also need to talk to chairs, section heads, and educationally committed faculty members. Every section of the department needs to be represented, to ensure a comprehensive overview. This takes time and effort, and it is important for departments to make this investment to ensure a successful transition to the new curriculum.
It is important to remember that self-examination is not the phase to specify specific numbers of rotations in different sections or how such pieces will fit together in the bigger picture. The goal of this step is to arrive at a qualitative assessment of how effectively each section educates residents. Difficult decisions may lie ahead, and these choices can be successful only if they are grounded in a thorough process of self-examination.
Analyzing the old curriculum
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Building a new curriculum
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Residents first
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Conclusions
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Deitte LA, DeStigter KK, Heitkamp DE. Update from the APDR Residency Restructuring Committee: options for program directors (2009 annual AUR meeting presentation). Available at: https://www2.apdr.org/documents/2009_meeting_materials.cfm . Accessed August 25, 2011.
2. Deitte L., Chertoff J.D., Mainiero M.B., et. al.: Challenges and opportunities in restructuring radiology residencies: the APDR Residency Restructuring Committee report. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: pp. 507-511.
3. Heitkamp DE. The core three years. Update from the APDR Residency Restructuring Committee: options for program directors (2009 annual AUR meeting presentation). Available at: https://www2apdr.org/documents/upload/Heitkamp-Update-RRC-The-Core-3-Years-Final.ppt . Accessed August 25, 2011.
4. Borgstede JP. Information for residents (2011 ACR AMCLC Meeting). Available at: http://www.theabr.org/the_abr/sites/all/themes/abr-media/ppt/Information%20for%20Residents.ppt . Accessed October 16, 2011.