First nationwide survey of US integrated 6-year cardiothoracic surgical residency program directors

• Authors: Amir H. Lebastchi, Yale University; John J. Tackett, Yale University; Michael Argenziano, New York Presbyterian-Columbia University; John H. Calhoon, University of Texas Health Science Center; Mario G. Gasparri, Medical College of Wisconsin; Michael Halkos, Emory University; George L. Hicks, University of Rochester; Mark D. Iannettoni, University of Iowa; John S. Ikonomidis, Medical University of South Carolina; Patrick M. McCarthy, Northwestern University; Sandra L. Starnes, University of Cincinnati; Betty C. Tong, Duke University; David D. Yuh, Yale University
• Journal Title: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
• Volume: Volume 148, Number 2
• Publisher: Elsevier | 2014-08-01, Pages 408-+
• Type of Work: Article | Post-print: After Peer Review
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.04.004
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery
• Keywords: Science & Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems; Respiratory System; Surgery; Cardiovascular System & Cardiology; APPLICANTS

Abstract

Objective: The recently implemented integrated 6-year (I-6) format represents a significant change in cardiothoracic surgical residency training. We report the results of the first nationwide survey assessing I-6 program directors' impressions of this new format. Methods: A 28-question web-based survey was distributed to program directors of all 24 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited I-6 training programs in November 2013. The response rate was a robust 67%. Results: Compared with graduates of traditional residencies, most I-6 program directors with enrolled residents believed that their graduates will be better trained (67%), be better prepared for new technological advances (67%), and have superior comprehension of cardiothoracic disease processes (83%). Just as with traditional program graduates, most respondents believed their I-6 graduates would be able to independently perform routine adult cardiac and general thoracic operations (75%) and were equivocal on whether additional specialty training (eg, minimally invasive, heart failure, aortic) was necessary. Most respondents did not believe that less general surgical training disadvantaged I-6 residents in terms of their career (83%); 67% of respondents would have chosen the I-6 format for themselves if given the choice. The greater challenges in training less mature and experienced trainees and vulnerability to attrition were noted as disadvantages of the I-6 format. Most respondents believed that I-6 programs represent a natural evolution toward improved residency training rather than a response to declining interest among medical school graduates. Conclusions: High satisfaction rates with the I-6 format were prevalent among I-6 program directors. However, concerns with respect to training relatively less experienced, mature trainees were evident.