Related Experiment Videos
Education Research: Challenges Faced by Neurology Trainees in a Neuro-Intervention Career Track
Conrad W Liang1, Saurav Das2, Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez2
1From Kaiser Permanente Fontana Medical Center (C.W.L.); UC Riverside School of Medicine (C.W.L.), CA; Washington University School of Medicine (S.D.), St Louis, MO; University of Iowa (S.O.-G.), Iowa City; University of California, Los Angeles (D.S.L.); Memorial Hermann Hospital-Texas Medical Center (J.C.G.), Houston; Cooper University Hospital (T.G.J.), Cooper Medical School of Rowan University Camden, NJ; Boston Medical Center (T.N.N.), Boston University School of Medicine, MA; Marcus Stroke & Neuroscience Center (R.G.N.), Grady Memorial Hospital, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; State University of New York Upstate Medical University (H.M.), Syracuse; Semmes-Murphey Clinic (L.E.), University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis; BSMH St Vincent Medical Center (O.O.Z.), Toledo, OH; University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (A.E.H.), Harlingen; Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute (I.L.), FL; Mount Sinai Hospital (J.T.F.), New York; and University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (S.A.S.). conrad.w.liang@kp.org.
Objective:
The widespread adoption of endovascular therapy (EVT) for emergent large vessel occlusion has led to increased nationwide demand for neurointerventionalists, heightened interest among neurology residents to pursue neurointervention as a career, and increased importance of neurointervention exposure for all neurologists who care for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Exposure to neurointervention and its career path are not well-defined for neurology trainees.
Methods:
The Society for Vascular and Interventional Neurology (SVIN) Education Committee conducted a multicenter electronic survey directed towards neurology residents and vascular neurology (VN), neurocritical care (NCC), and neurointervention fellows in June 2018. A total of 250 programs were invited to participate; 76 trainees completed the survey.
Results:
Respondents self-identified as 22% postgraduate year (PGY)2, 40% PGY3/4, 30% VN fellows, and 8% neurointervention or NCC fellows. Eighty-seven percent of trainees had more than 2 months exposure to VN during residency, 41% to NCC, and only 3% to neurointervention. Sixty-eight percent of respondents had no exposure to neurointervention during residency. Whereas 72% believed that a background in neurology was good preparation for neurointervention, only 41% agreed that fellowship training pathway in neurointervention is well-structured for neurology residents when compared to other subspecialties.
Conclusion:
In this survey, respondents identified lack of exposure to neurointervention and a well-defined training pathway as obstacles towards pursuing neurointervention as a career. These obstacles must be addressed for the continued development of neurointervention as a subspecialty of neurology.