Physician-Scientist Training and Programming in Pediatric Residency Programs: A National Survey

Child Health and the Pediatric Pulmonology Workforce: 2020-2040

There is concern as to whether the supply of pediatric pulmonology (PULM) subspecialists will be adequate to meet future demand. As part of an American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) Foundation-sponsored supplement investigating the future of the pediatric subspecialty workforce, this article assesses the current PULM clinical workforce and estimates the clinical workforce supply in the United States through 2040. The current workforce was assessed using ABP certification and Maintenance of Certification data, and a workforce supply model evaluating population growth, clinical effort, and geographic trends was developed after incorporating ABP data. Findings demonstrate that the number of pediatric pulmonologists has gradually increased over the past decade, and the ratio of subspecialists to children is likely to increase another 20% to 40% over the next 2 decades, although absolute numbers remain small. Geographic variation in access will persist in some regions. The proportion of women in the discipline has increased, but the proportion of pediatric pulmonologists from underrepresented in medicine backgrounds still lags behind the general population. Based on current trends, the PULM clinical workforce appears equipped to meet both population growth and the modest increase in demand for clinical services speculated to occur because of changes in the subspecialty's clinical portfolio. However, several factors could inhibit growth, and geographic maldistribution may continue to impact care access. Efforts to address variation in access and demographic diversity in the field are warranted. This article concludes by discussing the training, clinical practice, policy, and future workforce research implications of the data presented.

National Pediatrician-Scientist Collaborative Workgroup comment on new ACGME requirements' impact on pediatric physician-scientists

BACKGROUND

The ACGME recently released its recommendation for updates to the program requirements for pediatrics. These updates proposed changes to allocation of resident clinical time and a greater emphasis on individualization. The potential impact of these changes on the training of physician-scientists is discussed.

METHODS

Discussion of the proposed changes was held within the members of the National Pediatrician-Scientist Collaborative Workgroup, a group that represents scientists, trainees, program directors, chairs, and physician-scientist educators at nearly 30 residency programs from across the US with a focus on understanding and developing optimal approaches to physician-scientist training. Consideration was given to the both the personal and institutional impact of the proposal for physician-scientist development.

RESULTS

Both threats and opportunities were identified. Key opportunities include the enhanced individualized training time that could be used to explore research. Threats include re-allocation of clinical training time that may strain institutions financially, expand clinical service requirements for other early career stage individuals, and alter exposure to a broad range of pediatric specialists and sub-specialists that impact career development.

CONCLUSION

The NPSCW encourages consideration of the impact of changing program requirements on physician-scientist development to include ongoing discussion amongst mentors, programs, and trainees to understand and mitigate impact of new program requirements on the development of pediatrician-scientists.

Pearls of wisdom for aspiring physician-scientist residency applicants and program directors

Postgraduate physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs) enhance the experiences of physician-scientist trainees following medical school graduation. PSTPs usually span residency and fellowship training, but this varies widely by institution. Applicant competitiveness for these programs would be enhanced, and unnecessary trainee anxiety relieved, by a clear understanding of what factors define a successful PSTP matriculant. Such information would also be invaluable to PSTP directors and would allow benchmarking of their admissions processes with peer programs. We conducted a survey of PSTP directors across the US to understand the importance they placed on components of PSTP applications. Of 41 survey respondents, most were from internal medicine and pediatrics residency programs. Of all components in the application, two elements were considered very important by a majority of PSTP directors: (a) having one or more first-author publications and (b) the thesis advisor’s letter. Less weight was consistently placed on factors often considered more relevant for non-physician-scientist postgraduate applicants — such as US Medical Licensing Examination scores, awards, and leadership activities. The data presented here highlight important metrics for PSTP applicants and directors and suggest that indicators of scientific productivity and commitment to research outweigh traditional quantitative measures of medical school performance.