Modified Delphi Study to Establish Consensus About Child Neurology Residency Education: Next-Gen Training.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurology Pub Date : 2024-12-10 Epub Date: 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1212/WNL.0000000000210002
Rachel Gottlieb-Smith, Danny Rogers, Donald L Gilbert
{"title":"Modified Delphi Study to Establish Consensus About Child Neurology Residency Education: Next-Gen Training.","authors":"Rachel Gottlieb-Smith, Danny Rogers, Donald L Gilbert","doi":"10.1212/WNL.0000000000210002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Rapid advances in diagnostics and treatments are shifting child neurology practice, but child neurology training requirements have been much slower to change. Previous literature confirms strong support for modernization, but no formal consensus exists regarding maintaining or changing training. We aimed to develop a holistic consensus regarding the optimal training pathway and requirements using a modified Delphi process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors invited 48 child neurologists as panelists, intentionally selecting to represent the diverse geography, practice type, subspecialties, and other demographics of child neurologists practicing in the United States. Panelists participated in an anonymized modified Delphi study with 4 rounds evaluating statements regarding current training requirements, core rotation durations, and mandatory subspecialty rotations with the option to agree or disagree. Statements were derived from current Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and American Board of Pediatrics requirements for child neurology training and recent literature. Statements that did not reach a predefined level of consensus (≥75% agreement or disagreement on a 7-point Likert scale) were re-queried or modified for subsequent rounds. Panelists had access to all previous anonymized results and comments. The final modifications were presented in round 4 as a comprehensive training proposal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven panelists agreed to participate, with most completing all 4 rounds. In round 1, consensus was reached on 45 of 118 (38%) items; round 2, 28 of 87 (32%); round 3, 16 of 25 (64%); and round 4, 1 of 1 (100%). There was consensus regarding the age scope of practice and certain subspecialties that should be required, but no initial consensus regarding time-based requirements. By round 4, consensus emerged for the following rotations-months: neonatal and pediatric intensive care-4, adolescent medicine-0.5, emergency medicine-1.5, inpatient pediatrics-3, outpatient pediatrics-3.5, inpatient child neurology-9.5, outpatient child neurology-6, inpatient adult neurology-3, outpatient adult neurology-2, genetics-2, EEG/neurophysiology-2, neuroimaging-1, child psychiatry-1, and electives-7.5. The consensus schedule consists of 46.5 total months of requirements.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study suggests that, despite diverging views prevalent among child neurologists, a diverse panel can, through a multiround Delphi process, arrive at consensus regarding many core features of the child neurology training structure and certification requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":19256,"journal":{"name":"Neurology","volume":"103 11","pages":"e210002"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000210002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Rapid advances in diagnostics and treatments are shifting child neurology practice, but child neurology training requirements have been much slower to change. Previous literature confirms strong support for modernization, but no formal consensus exists regarding maintaining or changing training. We aimed to develop a holistic consensus regarding the optimal training pathway and requirements using a modified Delphi process.

Methods: The authors invited 48 child neurologists as panelists, intentionally selecting to represent the diverse geography, practice type, subspecialties, and other demographics of child neurologists practicing in the United States. Panelists participated in an anonymized modified Delphi study with 4 rounds evaluating statements regarding current training requirements, core rotation durations, and mandatory subspecialty rotations with the option to agree or disagree. Statements were derived from current Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and American Board of Pediatrics requirements for child neurology training and recent literature. Statements that did not reach a predefined level of consensus (≥75% agreement or disagreement on a 7-point Likert scale) were re-queried or modified for subsequent rounds. Panelists had access to all previous anonymized results and comments. The final modifications were presented in round 4 as a comprehensive training proposal.

Results: Twenty-seven panelists agreed to participate, with most completing all 4 rounds. In round 1, consensus was reached on 45 of 118 (38%) items; round 2, 28 of 87 (32%); round 3, 16 of 25 (64%); and round 4, 1 of 1 (100%). There was consensus regarding the age scope of practice and certain subspecialties that should be required, but no initial consensus regarding time-based requirements. By round 4, consensus emerged for the following rotations-months: neonatal and pediatric intensive care-4, adolescent medicine-0.5, emergency medicine-1.5, inpatient pediatrics-3, outpatient pediatrics-3.5, inpatient child neurology-9.5, outpatient child neurology-6, inpatient adult neurology-3, outpatient adult neurology-2, genetics-2, EEG/neurophysiology-2, neuroimaging-1, child psychiatry-1, and electives-7.5. The consensus schedule consists of 46.5 total months of requirements.

Discussion: This study suggests that, despite diverging views prevalent among child neurologists, a diverse panel can, through a multiround Delphi process, arrive at consensus regarding many core features of the child neurology training structure and certification requirements.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
修改后的德尔菲研究就儿童神经病学住院医师教育达成共识:下一代培训。
背景和目标:诊断和治疗的快速发展正在改变儿童神经病学的实践,但儿童神经病学培训要求的变化却要缓慢得多。以往的文献证实了对现代化的大力支持,但在维持或改变培训方面还没有达成正式共识。我们旨在通过改良的德尔菲流程,就最佳培训途径和要求达成整体共识:作者邀请了 48 名儿童神经科医生作为小组成员,有意选择代表不同地域、执业类型、亚专科和其他人口统计学特征的美国儿童神经科医生。小组成员参加了一项匿名的改良德尔菲研究,对有关当前培训要求、核心轮转时间和强制性亚专科轮转的声明进行了 4 轮评估,并可选择同意或不同意。这些陈述来自于美国毕业医学教育认证委员会、美国精神病学和神经病学委员会以及美国儿科学委员会对儿童神经病学培训的现行要求和近期文献。对于未达到预定共识水平(在 7 点李克特量表上同意或不同意的比例≥75%)的陈述,将在后续轮次中重新询问或修改。专家组成员可查阅所有先前的匿名结果和评论。最后的修改意见在第四轮中作为综合培训建议书提交:结果:27 位专家组成员同意参与,其中大多数人完成了全部 4 轮培训。在第一轮中,就 118 个项目中的 45 个(38%)达成了共识;第二轮中,就 87 个项目中的 28 个(32%)达成了共识;第三轮中,就 25 个项目中的 16 个(64%)达成了共识;第四轮中,就 1 个项目中的 1 个(100%)达成了共识。在执业年龄范围和某些亚专科的要求方面达成了共识,但在时间要求方面没有达成初步共识。到第四轮时,就以下轮转月数达成了共识:新生儿和儿科重症监护-4、青少年医学-0.5、急诊医学-1.5、住院儿科-3、门诊儿科-3.5、住院儿童神经病学-9.5、门诊儿童神经病学-6、住院成人神经病学-3、门诊成人神经病学-2、遗传学-2、脑电图/神经生理学-2、神经影像学-1、儿童精神病学-1,以及选修课-7.5。讨论:本研究表明,尽管儿童神经病学专家之间普遍存在意见分歧,但通过多轮德尔菲程序,不同的专家小组可以就儿童神经病学培训结构和认证要求的许多核心特征达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurology
Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
1973
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurology, the official journal of the American Academy of Neurology, aspires to be the premier peer-reviewed journal for clinical neurology research. Its mission is to publish exceptional peer-reviewed original research articles, editorials, and reviews to improve patient care, education, clinical research, and professionalism in neurology. As the leading clinical neurology journal worldwide, Neurology targets physicians specializing in nervous system diseases and conditions. It aims to advance the field by presenting new basic and clinical research that influences neurological practice. The journal is a leading source of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed information for the neurology community worldwide. Editorial content includes Research, Clinical/Scientific Notes, Views, Historical Neurology, NeuroImages, Humanities, Letters, and position papers from the American Academy of Neurology. The online version is considered the definitive version, encompassing all available content. Neurology is indexed in prestigious databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biological Abstracts®, PsycINFO®, Current Contents®, Web of Science®, CrossRef, and Google Scholar.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Reasoning: A 65-Year-Old Woman With Isolated Macroglossia as the Initial Presentation of a Rare Disease. Eculizumab in AQP4-IgG NMOSD: Efficacy in the Real World and Potential Warning of Meningococcal Vaccines. Moving Things Along: A New Model for the NINDS Clinical Neurotherapeutic Pipeline. Prevalence of Progression Independent of Relapse Activity and Relapse-Associated Worsening in Patients With AQP4-IgG-Positive NMOSD. Teaching NeuroImage: Occipital Condyle Syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1