ABSTRACT
New consumer technologies and interoperability standards have dated the first standardized curriculum for imaging informatics fellowships suggested by the Society for Computer Applications in Radiology (SCAR) in 2004 (Journal of digital imaging 17(4):244-248, 2004). Last year, analysis from this institution characterized current state fellowship graduation requirements and broad curriculum topics for the first time in over a decade (SIIM Strategic Plan 2017-2020). However, an updated "core" curriculum has not yet been developed. Using the recent current state analysis as a baseline, we aimed to perform a focused assessment and propose that this would work towards an updated consensus "core" curriculum as outlined by the Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine (SIIM, previously SCAR) strategic plan. A secondary aim was to identify individual program strengths and weaknesses to foster inter-program collaboration. Using sub-topics from the National Imaging Informatics Curriculum (NIIC), a week-long introductory course for residents, we expanded the original 29 broad curriculum categories identified in last year's current state analysis into 114 sub-topics. We surveyed imaging informatics fellowship directors to identify sub-topic prioritization on a 5-item Likert scale, teaching methods for each sub-topic, cross-departmental partnerships, and individual program strengths and weaknesses. Only 8% of sub-topics (10/114) received a "definitely" rating with 100% agreement while the majority of sub-topics 77% (88/114) had mixed grading defined by two or fewer "definitely" ratings. These sub-topics mapped to only 4 of the original 29 broad fellowship curriculum categories including Standards, Programming/Development/Software, Infrastructure, and PACS/RIS/Reporting. Our plan is to use consensus topics to build a "core" informatics fellowship curriculum and initiate discussion surrounding mixed grading topics. Knowledge of individual program strengths and weaknesses can be used to foster inter-program collaboration.
Subject(s)
Fellowships and Scholarships , Curriculum , Education, Medical, Graduate , Humans , Informatics , Radiology/education , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
In a 2016 survey of imaging informatics ("II") fellowship graduates, the surveyed fellowship graduates expressed the "opinion that II fellowships needed further formalization and standardization" Liao et al. (J Digit Imaging, 2016). This, coupled with the fact that the original published "standardized" curriculum is about 15 years out of date in our rapidly changing systems, suggests an opportunity for curriculum improvement. Before agreeing on improved structural and content suggestions for fellowships, we completed a current-state assessment of how each fellowship organizes its education and what requirements each have for fellowship completion. In this work, we aimed to collect existing information about imaging informatics fellowship curricula by contacting institutions across the country. A survey was completed by phone with the fellowship directors of existing imaging informatics fellowships across the country. Additionally, we collected existing documentation that outlines the curricula currently in use at institutions. We reviewed both the interview responses and documentation to assess overlapping trends and institutional differences in curriculum structure and content. All fellowships had suggested reading lists, didactic lectures, and a required project for each fellow. There were required practicum activities or teaching experience each in two fellowships, and one fellowship had a mandatory certification requirement for graduation. Curriculum topics in Technical Informatics or Business and Management were covered by a majority of institutions, while Quality and Safety and Research topics had inconsistent coverage across fellowships. Our plan is to reengage II fellowship directors to develop a core curriculum, which is part of the Society of Imaging Informatics in Medicine strategic plan.
