A better understanding of cardiovascular training programs may help address gaps in education and improve diversity in the field, according to two review papers published June 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

ACC's Cardiovascular Training Member Section created a Cardiovascular Program Directors Survey that was administered to program directors of all U.S. cardiovascular programs in the American Medical Association FREIDA Database of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited programs. Out of 229 eligible cardiovascular training programs, 130 responded to the survey.

In one paper, Julie B. Damp, MD, FACC, chair of ACC's Cardiovascular Training Member Section, et al., looked at the survey data to assess the landscape of training programs, and found that program sizes vary significantly, creating opportunities for innovation and collaboration among programs to learn how to better utilize resources regionally and nationally. They also found that women and minorities remain underrepresented in cardiovascular training, and that a significant number of program directors have less than the 25 – 50 percent of supported time required by the ACGME.

The authors conclude that the survey provides program directors with national norms to compare their programs and help identify important characteristics of training programs, which highlight opportunities for the specialty to collaborate, share resources and improve diversity.

Another paper by Gaby Weissman, MD, FACC, et al., looked at the survey data to examine how cardiology fellowship program directors perceive and implement COCATS4.

Results showed that most programs do not have the ability to clinically expose trainees to all facets of cardiovascular care; programs are not adhering to all aspects of the recommendations in COCATS4; and despite variation in program resources, program directors view COCATS4 favorably. The authors note that moving forward, it is important to discuss the challenges up front that programs might face in implementation, as further adaptations of COCATS are considered.

Both Damp and Weissman conclude that the ACC and other national bodies should lead in the evaluation of the workforce, as well as help address gaps and resource limitations faced by program directors.

Keywords: Fellowships and Scholarships, Education, Medical, Graduate, Accreditation, Training Support, Surveys and Questionnaires

< Back to Listings