The Case for Elective International Residency Rotations

Current US neurosurgical resident involvement, interest, and barriers in global neurosurgery

OBJECTIVE

It is estimated that nearly 47 million preventable deaths occur annually due the current worldwide deficit in surgical care; subsequently, the World Health Organization resolved unanimously to endorse a decree to address this deficit. Neurosurgeons from industrialized nations can help address the needs of underserved regions. Exposure during training is critical for young neurosurgeons to gain experience in international work and to cultivate career-long interest. Here, the authors explore the opinions of current residents and interest in global neurosurgery as well as the current state of international involvement, opportunities, and barriers in North American residency training.

METHODS

An internet-based questionnaire was developed using the authors' university's REDCap database and distributed to neurosurgical residents from US ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education)-approved programs. Questions focused on the resident's program's involvement and logistics regarding international rotations and the resident's interest level in pursuing these opportunities.

RESULTS

A 15% response rate was obtained from a broad range of training locations. Twenty-nine percent of respondents reported that their residency program offered elective training opportunities in developing countries, and 7.6% reported having participated in these programs. This cohort unanimously felt that the international rotation was a beneficial experience and agreed that they would do it again. Of those who had not participated, 81.3% reported interest or strong interest in international rotations.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' results indicate that, despite a high level of desire for involvement in international rotations, there is limited opportunity for residents to become involved. Barriers such as funding and rotation approval were recognized. It is the authors' hope that governing organizations and residency programs will work to break down these barriers and help establish rotations for trainees to learn abroad and begin to join the cause of meeting global surgical needs. To meet overarching international neurosurgical needs, neurosurgeons of the future must be trained in global neurosurgery.

Frameworks for Radiation Oncology Global Health Initiatives in US Residency Programs

PURPOSE

To understand trends, pathways, and experiences and to establish a framework for radiation oncology (RO) programs interested in developing global health (GH) initiatives.

METHODS

An in-depth interview was conducted of all US RO programs with established GH initiatives. Programs were identified by reviewing results of the 2018 Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Global Health Resident Survey and individualized outreach to screen for additional programs meeting the following criteria: (1) active resident involvement in RO-specific GH opportunities, (2) active faculty involvement in these initiatives, and (3) department chair or program director awareness and support for ongoing opportunities. Among 88 residency programs, 11 were identified. Standardized questions explored the type of initiative, planning, staff and resident involvement, challenges, components to success, and history of programs through December 2018.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2018, 11 programs started initiatives. Total resident participants ranged from one to 13 (median = 3) in each program's history. Initiatives spanned education (n = 9 [82%]), clinical mentorship (73%), innovative technology (55%), bilateral hosting programs (45%), clinical development and equipment (45%), promotion of local research (36%), clinical care (36%), industry partnerships (27%), and remote tumor board (18%). Faculty involvement included radiation oncologists (91%), medical physicists (55%), and non-RO department faculty (27%). Six programs (55%) had faculty with prior GH experience. Four (36%) programs reported medical student involvement in projects. Barriers included international communication (36%), time for faculty (18%), funding (9%), and legal (9%) concerns. Commonest components of success included fostering relationships with international sites and identifying needs before solutions.

CONCLUSION

RO GH initiatives were reported as positive, educational, and feasible across 11 US residency programs. Growth is expected, representing opportunities for innovation and service among US programs.

An Analysis of the Residents' Research, Education, and Wellness Resources in Radiation Oncology Residency Programs in the United States

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the variations in research, education, and wellness resources for residents among radiation oncology (RO) residency programs across the United States. A list of accredited programs for the academic year 2018 to 2019 was collected using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website. Individual residency program websites were used as the primary source of the data, and the Fellowship Residency Electronic Interactive Data Access System website complemented any missing data. We collected data on dedicated research time, resident rotations, wellness resources, and salary information. Excel 2013 was used for analysis. Information from the 94 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited RO residency programs during the academic year 2018 to 2019 was collected. Seventy-five (80%) programs reported the duration of dedicated research time on their websites. At least 6 months are allowed in 48 (51%) programs, and 27 (29%) programs report that dedicated research time is negotiable. Outstandingly, 20 (21%) programs allow 1 year of dedicated research time, and the median dedicated research time is 9 months. From our study, only 13 (14%) residency programs allow residents to rotate in other departments of the same institution. Fifty-nine (63%) programs allow away rotations at other institutions (external electives). An international rotation is permitted only in 19 (20%) programs. Wellness resoursces specifically fatigue managment, resident retreat and resident mentoring programs were available in 53%, 26% and 42% of programs, respectively. The salary information is obtainable for 63 institutions, and the yearly compensation ranges between $51,000 and $78,000. Moonlighting is allowed only in 28 (30%) programs. Our study found that major variations exist among RO residency programs in the United States regarding research, education, and wellness resources for residents.