Subspecialty training in preventive cardiology: the current status and discoverable fellowship programs

Cardiometabolic medicine: a review of the current proposed approaches to revamped training in the United States

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality in the United States, and the population of patients with cardiometabolic conditions, including obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes mellitus, continues to grow. There is a need for physicians with specific training in cardiometabolic medicine to provide a ‘medical home’ for patients with cardiometabolic disease, rather than the fractured care that currently exists in the United States. Cardiometabolic specialists will head multidisciplinary clinics, develop practice guidelines, and lead through research. Proposals for US training in cardiometabolic medicine include: maintain the current training model, a dedicated 2–3 year fellowship following internal medicine residency, a 1-year fellowship following either internal medicine residency or fellowship in cardiology or endocrinology, and certification available to any interested clinician. This review discusses the pros and cons of these approaches. The authors believe that a dedicated cardiometabolic training fellowship has significant advantages over the other options.

Cardiovascular disease prevention career pathways: The status quo and future directions

Cardiovascular disease prevention is a complicated field requiring similar resource allocation and training as any other subspecialty in cardiology. To highlight the increasing need for primordial, primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention at a population level, it is necessary to have a clear vision for not only adequate training in the field but also sample career trajectories that today’s fellows-intraining (FIT) and early career (EC) physicians can use as a reference. However due to less centralized training, reduced exposure to the discipline and no clear institutional champions, direct access to “role model” careers in cardiovascular disease prevention may be lacking for today’s generation of trainees. These trends may change with more formalized recognition and more visibility of career trajectories in the field. In the current short report, we propose career pathways in cardiovascular disease prevention that can serve as a board resource roadmap for today’s FIT/EC physicians to design their careers in cardiovascular disease prevention. We explore three types of preventive cardiologists prototypes including; “the researcher”, “the clinician” and “the academic” preventive cardiologist models. These models are based on experiences gained in separate preventive cardiology training fellowships in addition to general cardiology training. Further, with advances in the scientific technologies, we highlight the future trajectory in the field. Preventive cardiology, although currently not the most desired path for FIT/EC physicians to pursue today, has the potential to be seen as the lucrative and essential training field in the future.

Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: Training Opportunities, the Challenges, and Future Directions

PURPOSE

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, necessitating major efforts in prevention. This review summarizes the currently available training opportunities in CVD prevention for fellows-in-training (FITs) and residents. We also highlight the challenges and future directions for CVD prevention as a field and propose a structure for an inclusive CVD prevention training program.

RECENT FINDINGS

At present, there is a lack of centralized training resources for FITs and residents interested in pursuing a career in CVD prevention. Training in CVD prevention is not an accredited subspecialty fellowship by the American Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Although there are several independent training programs under the broad umbrella of CVD prevention focusing on different aspects of prevention, there is no unified curriculum or training. More collaborative efforts are needed to identify CVD prevention as an ACGME-accredited subspecialty fellowship. Providing more resources can encourage and produce more leaders in this essential field.

Patterns of Change in ACGME-Accredited Residency Programs and Positions: Implication for the Adequacy of GME Positions and Supply of Physicians in the United States

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that the supply of primary care physicians and generalist physicians in other specialties may be inadequate to meet the needs of the US population. Data on the numbers and types of physicians-in-training, such as those collected by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), can be used to help understand variables affecting this supply.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed trends in the number and type of medical school graduates entering accredited residencies, and the impact those trends could have on the future physician workforce.

METHODS

Since 2004, the ACGME has published annually its data on accredited institutions, programs, and residents to help the graduate medical education community understand major trends in residency education, and to help guide graduate medical education policy. We present key results and trends for the period between academic years 2003-2004 and 2012-2013.

RESULTS

The data show that increases in trainees in accredited programs are not uniform across specialties, or the types of medical school from which trainees graduated. In the past 10 years, the growth in residents entering training that culminates in initial board certification ("pipeline" specialties) was 13.0%, the number of trainees entering subspecialty education increased 39.9%. In the past 5 years, there has been a 25.8% increase in the number of osteopathic physicians entering allopathic programs.

CONCLUSIONS

These trends portend challenges in absorbing the increasing numbers of allopathic and osteopathic graduates, and US international graduates in accredited programs. The increasing trend in subspecialization appears at odds with the current understanding of the need for generalist physicians.