Survey of Clinical Neurophysiology and Epilepsy Fellowship Programs in the United States During COVID-19

Exploring the content of epilepsy fellowship program websites: an analysis of information available to applicants

BACKGROUND

Program websites are essential resources in the process of residency and fellowship application. We evaluated the information furnished on these resources by Epilepsy fellowship programs. The extent of information provided was compared across geographic zones, academic affiliation, and national ranking.

METHODS

A list of Epilepsy fellowship programs was derived from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA). Links to program websites were obtained directly from FREIDA or using Google's search engine. Online data was categorized to reflect program information, education, recruitment, compensation, epilepsy center-specific information, and social media presence. Data points under each category were collected to develop a standardized scoring system. The frequency of criterion present was compared across geographic zones, academic affiliation, and national ranking using parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. Significance was determined at a p-value ≤ 0.05 for all cases. The study utilized IBM SPSS version 28 and Python 3.11.3.

RESULTS

We analyzed 80 Epilepsy fellowship programs. The most reported feature was the program director's name and email (100.0%). The least reported features included board pass rates (1.3%), preparatory boot camp (8.8%), and post-fellowship placements (11.3%). Programs were found to be well-represented on X (88.8%), Facebook (81.3%), and Instagram (71.3%). Most (85.0%) of the programs were searchable through Google. The scores for program information, education, recruitment, compensation, epilepsy center-specific information, and social media visibility did not significantly vary based on location, academic affiliation, or rank status.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that despite an online presence, there is much room for improvement in the content available to the applicant. To improve the Match process and attract a roster of well-informed fellows, Epilepsy fellowship programs should furnish program websites with up-to-date information relevant to program information, education, recruitment, compensation, and epilepsy center-specific information.

Survey of Continuous EEG Monitoring Practices in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Continuous EEG (cEEG) practice has markedly changed over the last decade given its utility in improving critical care outcomes. However, there are limited data describing the current cEEG infrastructure in US hospitals.

METHODS

A web-based cEEG practice survey was sent to neurophysiologists at 123 ACGME-accredited epilepsy or clinical neurophysiology programs.

RESULTS

Neurophysiologists from 100 (81.3%) institutions completed the survey. Most institutions had 3 to 10 EEG faculty (80.0%), 1 to 5 fellows (74.8%), ≥6 technologists (84.9%), and provided coverage to neurology ICUs with >10 patients (71.0%) at a time. Round-the-clock EEG technologist coverage was available at most (90.0%) institutions with technologists mostly being in-house (68.0%). Most institutions without after-hours coverage (8 of 10) attributed this to insufficient technologists. The typical monitoring duration was 24 to 48 hours (23.0 and 40.0%), most commonly for subclinical seizures (68.4%) and spell characterization (11.2%). Larger neurology ICUs had more EEG technologists ( p = 0.02), fellows ( p = 0.001), and quantitative EEG use ( p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey explores current cEEG practice patterns in the United States. Larger centers had more technologists and fellows. Overall technologist numbers are stable over time, but with a move toward more in-hospital compared with home-based coverage. Reduced availability of EEG technologists was a major factor limiting cEEG availability at some centers.