Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA.
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2011 May-Jun;1(3):206-11. doi: 10.1002/alr.20032. Epub 2011 Apr 13.
The past 5 years have witnessed the introduction of numerous rhinology fellowships that may have altered the education of individuals electing to pursue postgraduate training. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rhinology fellowship experience and its possible impact on current practice patterns of U.S. fellowship-trained rhinologists.
A 27-item web-based survey (www.surveymonkey.com) was conducted under the purview of the American Rhinologic Society (ARS) Fellowship Committee between November 2009 and January 2010. The target group included 112 rhinologists who completed fellowship training between 1990 and 2009.
A total of 62 fellows (55.4%) completed the survey. The respondents represented all regions of the country, with most common being southeast (25%) and south central (18%). The most common type of clinical practice was academic in 68%, followed by single-specialty group (19%), multispecialty (6.5%), and solo practice (6.5%). Rhinology entailed >75% and 50% to 75% of clinical practice for 61% and 24% of respondents, respectively. The primary reasons for selecting a rhinology fellowship were career in academics (64%) and interest in rhinologic procedures (31%). Overall fellowship experience was rated as excellent and good by 84% and 16%, respectively. The mean number of rhinologic procedures during fellowship were >200 in 59% and 151 to 200 in 27% of respondents. Allergy training exposure was reported by 59% during training. Clinical and basic science research exposure was rated as excellent or good by 90% and 44%, respectively.
The rhinology fellowship experience to date appears to be well-regarded by majority of respondents. Future dialogue should focus on identification of deficiencies in the current rhinology fellowship educational process.
过去 5 年见证了许多鼻科学研究金的引入，这些研究金可能改变了选择接受研究生培训的个人的教育方式。本研究的目的是评估鼻科学研究金的经验及其对目前美国研究金培训的鼻科医生实践模式的可能影响。
在美国鼻科学会（ARS）研究金委员会的监督下，于 2009 年 11 月至 2010 年 1 月期间进行了一项基于网络的 27 项调查（www.surveymonkey.com）。目标群体包括 1990 年至 2009 年期间完成研究金培训的 112 名鼻科医生。
共有 62 名研究金获得者（55.4%）完成了调查。受访者代表了全国所有地区，其中最常见的是东南部（25%）和中南部（18%）。最常见的临床实践类型是学术性的，占 68%，其次是单一专业组（19%）、多专业（6.5%）和单独执业（6.5%）。鼻科学涉及>75%和 50%至 75%的临床实践，分别占受访者的 61%和 24%。选择鼻科学研究金的主要原因是从事学术职业（64%）和对鼻科学程序的兴趣（31%）。总体而言，研究金经验被 84%的人评为优秀，16%的人评为良好。在研究金期间，59%的人进行了超过 200 次鼻科学手术，27%的人进行了 151 至 200 次鼻科学手术。59%的人在培训期间报告了过敏培训经历。临床和基础科学研究的接触情况，分别有 90%和 44%的人认为是优秀或良好。
到目前为止，鼻科学研究金的经验似乎得到了大多数受访者的好评。未来的对话应集中在确定当前鼻科学研究金教育过程中的不足之处。
