Variable exposure to echocardiography core competencies when applying minimum recommended procedural numbers for cardiology fellows in training

Background

The American College of Cardiology Core Cardiovascular Training Statement (COCATS) defined echocardiography core competencies and set the minimum recommend number of echocardiograms to perform (150) and interpret (300) for independent practice in echocardiography (level 2 training). Fellows may lack exposure to key pathologies that are relatively infrequent, however, even when achieving an adequate number of studies performed and interpreted. We hypothesized that cardiology fellows would lack exposure to 1 or more cardiac pathologies related to core competencies in COCATS when performing and interpreting the minimum recommend number of studies for level 2 training.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 11,250 reports from consecutive echocardiograms interpreted (7,500) and performed (3,750) by 25 cardiology fellows at a University tertiary referral hospital who graduated between 2015 and 2019. The first 300 echocardiograms interpreted and the first 150 echocardiograms performed by each fellow were included in the analysis. Echocardiography reports were reviewed for cardiac pathologies relating to core competencies defined in COCATS.

Results

All 25 fellows lacked exposure to 1 or more cardiac pathologies related to echocardiography core competencies despite meeting COCATS minimum recommended numbers for echocardiograms performed and interpreted. Pathologies for which 1 or more fellows encountered 0 cases despite meeting the minimum recommended numbers for both echocardiograms performed and interpreted included: pericardial constriction (16/25 fellows), aortic dissection (15/25 fellows), pericardial tamponade (4/25 fellows), valvular mass/thrombus (2/25 fellows), prosthetic valve dysfunction (1/25 fellows), and cardiac chamber mass/thrombus (1/25 fellows).

Conclusions

Cardiology fellows who completed the minimum recommend number of echocardiograms performed and interpreted for COCATS level 2 training frequently lacked exposure to cardiac pathologies, even in a University tertiary referral hospital setting. These data suggest that fellowship programs should monitor pathology case counts for each fellow in training, in addition to the minimum recommend number of echocardiograms defined by COCATS, to ensure competency for independent practice in echocardiography.

Validity of a cardiology fellow performance assessment: reliability and associations with standardized examinations and awards

BACKGROUND

Most work on the validity of clinical assessments for measuring learner performance in graduate medical education has occurred at the residency level. Minimal research exists on the validity of clinical assessments for measuring learner performance in advanced subspecialties. We sought to determine validity characteristics of cardiology fellows' assessment scores during subspecialty training, which represents the largest subspecialty of internal medicine. Validity evidence included item content, internal consistency reliability, and associations between faculty-of-fellow clinical assessments and other pertinent variables.

METHODS

This was a retrospective validation study exploring the domains of content, internal structure, and relations to other variables validity evidence for scores on faculty-of-fellow clinical assessments that include the 10-item Mayo Cardiology Fellows Assessment (MCFA-10). Participants included 7 cardiology fellowship classes. The MCFA-10 item content included questions previously validated in the assessment of internal medicine residents. Internal structure evidence was assessed through Cronbach's α. The outcome for relations to other variables evidence was overall mean of faculty-of-fellow assessment score (scale 1-5). Independent variables included common measures of fellow performance.

FINDINGS

Participants included 65 cardiology fellows. The overall mean ± standard deviation faculty-of-fellow assessment score was 4.07 ± 0.18. Content evidence for the MCFA-10 scores was based on published literature and core competencies. Cronbach's α was 0.98, suggesting high internal consistency reliability and offering evidence for internal structure validity. In multivariable analysis to provide relations to other variables evidence, mean assessment scores were independently associated with in-training examination scores (beta = 0.088 per 10-point increase; p = 0.05) and receiving a departmental or institutional award (beta = 0.152; p = 0.001). Assessment scores were not associated with educational conference attendance, compliance with completion of required evaluations, faculty appointment upon completion of training, or performance on the board certification exam. R² for the multivariable model was 0.25.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide sound validity evidence establishing item content, internal consistency reliability, and associations with other variables for faculty-of-fellow clinical assessment scores that include MCFA-10 items during cardiology fellowship. Relations to other variables evidence included associations of assessment scores with performance on the in-training examination and receipt of competitive awards. These data support the utility of the MCFA-10 as a measure of performance during cardiology training and could serve as the foundation for future research on the assessment of subspecialty learners.

Characteristics of internal medicine residents who successfully match into cardiology fellowships

BACKGROUND

The unique traits of residents who matriculate into subspecialty fellowships are poorly understood. We sought to identify characteristics of internal medicine (IM) residents who match into cardiovascular (CV) fellowships.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 8 classes of IM residents who matriculated into residency from 2007 to 2014. The primary outcome was successful match to a CV fellowship within 1 year of completing IM residency. Independent variables included residents' licensing exam scores, research publications, medical school reputation, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, declaration of intent to pursue CV in the residency application personal statement, clinical evaluation scores, mini-clinical evaluation exercise scores, in-training examination (ITE) performance, and exposure to CV during residency.

RESULTS

Of the 339 included residents (59% male; mean age 27) from 120 medical schools, 73 (22%) matched to CV fellowship. At the time of residency application, 104 (31%) had ≥1 publication, 38 (11%) declared intention to pursue CV in their residency application personal statement, and 104 (31%) were members of AOA. Prior to fellowship application, 111 (33%) completed a CV elective rotation. At the completion of residency training, 108 (32%) had ≥3 publications. In an adjusted logistic regression analysis, declaration of intention to pursue CV (OR 6.4, 99% CI 1.7-23.4; p < 0.001), completion of a CV elective (OR 7.3, 99% CI 2.8-19.0; p < 0.001), score on the CV portion of the PGY-2 ITE (OR 1.05, 99% CI 1.02-1.08; p < 0.001), and publication of ≥3 manuscripts (OR 4.7, 99% CI 1.1-20.5; p = 0.007) were positively associated with matching to a CV fellowship. Overall PGY-2 ITE score was negatively associated (OR 0.93, 99% CI 0.90-0.97; p < 0.001) with matching to a CV fellowship.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents' matriculation into CV fellowships was associated with declaration of CV career intent, completion of a CV elective rotation, CV medical knowledge, and research publications during residency. These findings may be useful when advising residents about pursuing careers in CV. They may also help residents understand factors associated with a successful match to a CV fellowship. The negative association between matching into CV fellowship and overall ITE score may indicate excessive subspecialty focus during IM residency.