Open Access

ARTICLE

Using a statewide survey methodology to prioritize pediatric cardiology core content

by

1 Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
2 Graduate Medical Education, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky, USA

* Corresponding Author: Ashley E. Neal, Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 571 S. Floyd St. Suite 334, Louisville, KY 40202. Email:

Congenital Heart Disease 2018, 13(1), 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/chd.12559

Abstract

Objective: Although pediatrician-reported relevance of Canadian cardiology-specific objectives has been studied, similar data are not available for the 2016 American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) cardiology-specific objectives. This study asked Kentucky trainees, pediatricians, and pediatric cardiologists to identify “most important” content within these objectives.
Design, Methods, Outcome Measures: This cross-sectional study used an original, online survey instrument based on the 2016 ABP cardiology-specific objectives. We collected quantitative data (numerical indications of importance) and qualitative data (open-ended replies regarding missing content and difficulty in teaching and learning). Respondents indicated the top two choices of most important items within eight content areas. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) and chi-square analysis were calculated. Content within categories was organized using naturally occurring “clusters” and “gaps” in scores. Common themes among open-ended qualitative responses were identified using Pandit’s version of Glaser and Strauss Grounded theory (constant comparison).
Results: Of the 136 respondents, 23 (17%) were residents, 15 (11%) fellows, 85 (62%) pediatricians, and 13 (10%) pediatric cardiologists. Of attendings, 80% reported faculty/gratis faculty status. Naturally occurring clusters in respondent-designated importance resulted in ≤3 “most selected” objectives per content area. Objectives in “most selected” content pertained to initial diagnosis (recognition of abnormality/disease) (n = 16), possible emergent/urgent intervention required (n = 14), building a differential (n = 8), and planning a workup (n = 4). Conversely, themes for “least selected” content included comanagement with subspecialist (n = 15), knowledge useful in patient-family communication (n = 9), knowledge that can be referenced (as needed) (n = 7), and longitudinal/follow-up concerns (n = 5).
Conclusions: This study demonstrated the utility of an online survey methodology to identify pediatric cardiology content perceived most important. Learners and faculty generally provided concordant responses regarding most important content within the cardiology-specific ABP objectives. Medical educators could apply this methodology to inform curriculum revision.

---

Keywords

---