Open Access

ARTICLE

A qualitative assessment of pediatric cardiology core content: Comments from Kentucky trainees, pediatricians, and pediatric cardiologists

Ashley E. Neal¹, Elizabeth Lehto¹, Karen Hughes Miller², Erin Davis³, Craig Ziegler²

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
3 Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky, USA

* Corresponding Author: Ashley E. Neal, MD, 571 S. Floyd St. Suite 334, Louisville, KY 40202. Email:

Congenital Heart Disease 2018, 13(5), 788-793. https://doi.org/10.1111/chd.12626

Abstract

Objective: The 2016 American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) content outline is comprehensive, including more than 50 cardiology-specific objectives within eight content areas. This study complements the quantitative analysis of a Kentucky-wide survey of trainees, pediatricians, and pediatric cardiologists asking them to identify “most important” cardiology content by analyzing their open-ended comments about “what should be added” and “why?” within these eight categories.
Design, Methods, Outcome Measures: This cross-sectional study used an original, online survey instrument based on the 2016 ABP cardiology-specific objectives. We began an initial analysis of the qualitative data using Pandit’s version of Glaser and Strauss Grounded theory (constant comparison). However, upon finding an abundance of comments focused on Diagnosis, we proceeded with a secondary analysis that further categorized Diagnosis comments into three themes aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy. Additional comments focused on Management and clustered into Emergent/Acute Care (Resuscitation); Short-term Care (Inpatient); and Longitudinal Care (Outpatient).
Results: Of the 136 respondents, 23 (17%) were residents, 15 (11%) fellows, 85 (62%) pediatricians, and 13 (10%) pediatric cardiologists with 80% of attendings having faculty/gratis faculty status. The open-ended questions “what needs to be added” and “why” generated 93 comments; 60 of which focused on Diagnosis; further classified as Recognize (16), Differentiate (12), and Evaluate (32). Management comments were related to acuity and care setting, grouped as Emergent/Acute Care (Resuscitation) [10]; Short-term Care (Inpatient) [6]; and Longitudinal Care (Outpatient) [17].
Conclusions: The 93 comments analyzed for this article showed a distinct preference for all respondents, trainees, pediatricians, and cardiologists alike, to value the addition of diagnostic skills with emphasis in the “evaluate” skill set as important cardiology curricular content beyond that included in the 2016 ABP cardiology-specific objectives. Responses could be used to provide practical guidance for curriculum design and reform.

---

Keywords

---