Search

Background: Invasive procedures are a core aspect of pulmonary and critical care practice. Procedures performed in the intensive care unit can be divided into high-risk, low-volume (HRLV) procedures and low-risk, high-volume (LRHV) procedures. HRLV procedures include cricothyroidotomy, pericardiocentesis, Blakemore tube placement, and bronchial blocker placement. LRHV procedures include arterial line placement, central venous catheter placement, thoracentesis, and flexible bronchoscopy. Despite the frequency and importance of procedures in critical care medicine, little is known about the similarities and differences in procedural training between different Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) and Critical Care Medicine (CCM) training programs. Furthermore, differences in procedural training practices for HRLV and LRHV procedures have not previously been described. Objective: To assess procedural training practices in PCCM and CCM fellowship programs in the United States, and compare differences in training between HRLV and LRHV procedures. Methods: A novel survey instrument was developed and disseminated to PCCM and CCM program directors and associate program directors at PCCM and CCM fellowship programs in the United States to assess procedural teaching practices for HRLV and LRHV procedures. Results: The survey was sent to 221 fellowship programs, 168 PCCM and 34 CCM, with 70 unique respondents (31.7% response rate). Of the procedural educational strategies assessed, each strategy was used significantly more frequently for LRHV versus HRLV procedures. The majority of respondents (51.1%) report having no dedicated training for HRLV procedures versus 6.9% reporting no dedicated training for any LRHV procedure (P

Background: Little is known about historical and recent application trends for pulmonary critical care medicine (PCCM) or pulmonary medicine (PM) fellowship programs. Describing trends in and characteristics of PCCM and PM applications, applicants, and fellowship programs can help program directors and medical educators understand trainees’ interest in and application patterns for these fellowship programs. Objective: The objective of this study was to use National Residency Match Program data to assess recent trends in PCCM and PM fellowship applications and compare characteristics of applicants and fellowship programs. Methods: In 2019, we used National Residency Match Program data to evaluate applicant ranking and matching in PCCM and PM fellowship programs and to compare applicant and fellowship program characteristics. Results: From 2008 through 2019, the majority of applicants (59.1%) matched into PCCM were graduates of U.S. allopathic or osteopathic medical schools, whereas 87% of PM fellows were non-U.S. graduates. PCCM was the preferred specialty for 90.8% of matched applicants versus only 31.6% of matched PM applicants (P