Suppr超能文献

神经病学住院医师培训中的程序性头痛医学:对美国项目主任的调查。

Procedural Headache Medicine in Neurology Residency Training: A Survey of US Program Directors.

机构信息

Department of Neurology, Montefiore Headache Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

出版信息

Headache. 2016 Jan;56(1):79-85. doi: 10.1111/head.12695. Epub 2015 Sep 9.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To survey neurology residency program directors (PDs) on trainee exposure, supervision, and credentialing in procedures widely utilized in headache medicine.

BACKGROUND

Clinic-based procedures have assumed a prominent role in headache therapy. Headache fellows obtain procedural competence, but reliance on fellowship-trained neurologists cannot match the population eligible for treatments. The inclusion of educational modules and mechanisms for credentialing trainees pursuing procedural competence in residency curricula at individual programs is not known.

METHODS

A web-based survey of US neurology residency PDs was designed by the American Headache Society (AHS) procedural special interest section in collaboration with AHS and American Academy of Neurology's Headache and Facial Pain section leadership. The survey addressed exposure, training, and credentialing in: (1) onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) injections, (2) extracranial peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs), and (3) trigger point injections (TPIs).

RESULTS

Fifty-five PDs (42.6%) completed the survey. Compared to noncompleters, survey completers were more likely to feature headache fellowships at their institutions (38.2% vs 10.8%, P=0.0002). High exposure (onabotA=90.9%, PNBs=80.0%, TPIs=70.9%) usually featured hands-on patient instruction (66.2%) and lectures (55.7%). Supervised performance rates were high (onabotA=65.5%, PNBs=60.0%, TPIs=52.7%), usually in continuity clinic (60.0%) or headache elective (50.9%). Headache specialists (69.1%) or general neurology (32.7%) faculty most commonly trained residents. Formal credentialing was uncommon (16.4-18.2%), mostly by documenting supervised procedures (25.5%). Only 27.3% of programs permitted trainees to perform procedures independently. Most PDs felt procedural exposure (80.0-90.9%) and competence (50.9-56.4%) by all trainees was important.

CONCLUSIONS

Resident exposure to procedures for headache is high, but credentialing mechanisms, while desired by most PDs, are not generally in place. Implementation of a credentialing process may ensure trainees enter practice with the ability to perform procedures safely and effectively.

摘要

目的

调查神经科住院医师培训项目主任(PD)在广泛应用于头痛医学的程序方面的学员接触、监督和认证情况。

背景

基于诊所的程序在头痛治疗中扮演了重要角色。头痛研究员获得了程序能力,但对 fellowship-trained 神经科医生的依赖无法与有资格接受治疗的人群相匹配。在各个项目的住院医师课程中纳入教育模块和认证程序能力学员的机制尚不清楚。

方法

由美国头痛协会(AHS)程序特别利益部门与 AHS 和美国神经病学学会头痛和面痛分会领导合作设计了一项针对美国神经科住院医师 PD 的网络调查。该调查涵盖了接触、培训和认证:(1)肉毒毒素 A 注射(onabotA),(2)颅外周围神经阻滞(PNB),和(3)扳机点注射(TPI)。

结果

55 名 PD(42.6%)完成了调查。与未完成者相比,完成调查者所在机构更有可能开展头痛研究员项目(38.2% vs 10.8%,P=0.0002)。高接触率(onabotA=90.9%,PNB=80.0%,TPI=70.9%)通常包括对患者的实践指导(66.2%)和讲座(55.7%)。监督绩效率较高(onabotA=65.5%,PNB=60.0%,TPI=52.7%),通常在连续性诊所(60.0%)或头痛选修课(50.9%)中进行。头痛专家(69.1%)或一般神经病学(32.7%)教员最常培训住院医师。正式认证并不常见(16.4-18.2%),主要是通过记录监督程序(25.5%)。只有 27.3%的项目允许学员独立进行操作。大多数 PD 认为所有学员的程序接触(80.0-90.9%)和能力(50.9-56.4%)都很重要。

结论

住院医师接触头痛治疗程序的机会很高,但大多数 PD 都希望有认证机制,但尚未普遍建立。实施认证程序可能确保学员进入实践时具备安全有效地进行操作的能力。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验