Milestones for Apheresis education

Apheresis medicine education during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced challenges and disruption across healthcare, including apheresis medicine (AM). In this study, we report findings from a survey conducted among American Society for Apheresis Physician Committee (ASFA-PC) members to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AM education practices.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A voluntary, anonymous, 24-question, institutional review board-approved survey regarding AM teaching during the pandemic was distributed to ASFA-PC members in the United States between December 1, 2020, and December 15, 2020. Descriptive analyses were reported as number and frequency of respondents for each question. Free text responses were summarized.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 14/31 (45%) of ASFA-PC members, of whom 12 practiced at academic institutions. Among these, 11/12 (92%) transitioned to virtual platform for AM trainee conferences during the pandemic. A variety of resources were employed to support independent AM learning. While 7/12 (58%) respondents did not change the informed consent process for AM procedures, others delegated this process or introduced remote alternatives. The most common method respondents used to conduct AM patient rounding was a hybrid in-person/virtual model.

CONCLUSION

This survey describes the adaptations and changes AM practitioners made to trainee education in response to the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The transition to virtual and/or hybrid trainee learning and AM rounds underscores the importance of digital AM resources. Further study of the effects of the pandemic and its impact on AM trainee education, as well as patient care is warranted.

Current state of therapeutic apheresis and cellular therapy education for transfusion medicine fellows in the United States

BACKGROUND

Numerous conditions are responsive to therapeutic apheresis (TA) and cellular therapy (CT) treatments. Both TA and CT are two broad and diverse knowledge fields within transfusion medicine (TM). We therefore sought to survey all the TM fellowship program directors (PDs) in the United States to examine the current fellow state education in TA and CT.

METHODS

A 37-question survey was sent to all PDs to collect details of TA and CT training for TM fellows.

RESULTS

Responses from 29/51 (56.9%) surveyed programs were received. Most PDs considered TA and CT training for their fellows more than adequate. Two PDs from programs that did not directly oversee TA and CT services at their training sites stated that their program's training in these two areas were only "slightly adequate" or "moderately inadequate." Detailed analysis of training in TA, cell collection, and CT suggests that trainees from programs with direct oversight of these services had longer training and more learning experiences compared to those in which outside rotations were required.

CONCLUSIONS

Transfusion medicine fellowship training in TA and CT varies. Most respondents, and particularly those from programs directly overseeing TA services, reported their fellows were adequately prepared in TA. Cellular therapy collections and laboratory operations, however, are less consistent areas of training despite the rapid expansion of these fields. Our survey suggests that a greater emphasis in CT training is needed.

Entrustable professional activities for apheresis medicine education

BACKGROUND

Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are well-defined, executable, observable, and measurable activities that are performed by a trainee and can be performed independently as training progresses. The purpose of this study is to develop EPAs specific for the practice of apheresis medicine (AM).

METHODS

Members of the American Society for Apheresis Graduate Medical Education subcommittee developed a list of 28 apheresis medical activities linked to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones and competencies in five areas: (a) consultation, (b) clinical care for therapeutic apheresis, (c) clinical care for donor collections, (d) test optimization, and (e) vascular access. Ten AM experts using a validated tool to measure the quality of the EPAs (QUEPA) evaluated these activities with use of a Likert scale. Per group consensus, an activity was considered acceptable for each domain if it had received an average score greater than 3.7, and it was rated 4 or 5 (agree or strongly agree) by at least 70% of experts.

RESULTS

Of the 28 activities, 11 did not have acceptable QUEPA scores: 7 activities were rated as unobservable, 4 were rated unfocused, 2 were rated unrealistic and not generalizable, and 2 were rated as not addressing multiple competencies. Four activities had unacceptable scores in more than one domain. Subcommittee members edited these 11 activities over two review cycles to produce a final list of 26 activities.

CONCLUSION

A set of practical, focused, and observable EPAs in AM were systematically developed. These EPAs can be used to assess and support trainee performance in AM.

Apheresis education in Canadian residency programs: A needs assessment

Indications for therapeutic and donor apheresis continue to increase and expand into new domains of therapy. The level and amount of apheresis education in residency programs remains heterogeneous, which may translate into varying degrees of clinical confidence in providing care. The purpose of this study was to assess Canadian clinicians' perceptions of their apheresis training in order to help demonstrate a need for a concrete apheresis education in residency curricula. A 22-question survey was distributed to Canadian graduates who recently completed training (2013-2017) in the following specialties: hematology, nephrology, transfusion medicine, and hematologic pathology. Questions regarding clinician perception of their training were asked using a Likert scale. Fifty-seven survey responses (32% response rate) were obtained from recent graduates from hematology (29/57, 51%), nephrology (21/57, 37%), hematologic pathology (4/57, 7%) and transfusion medicine (3/57, 5%). Although most respondents (68%) received some form of apheresis exposure during residency, only 23% reported a formal apheresis rotation. Only 40% felt that the amount of time devoted to apheresis education was sufficient, and only four respondents (7%) felt confident providing independent apheresis care at the end of training. Overall, these findings suggest that a common, dedicated apheresis curriculum in these training programs could possibly increase knowledge and competence of trainees, and provide a more solid foundation in apheresis for future practice.