keynote update on the program directors%27 caucus activities and introduction of new chair
Post on 12-Jun-2015
99 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Program Directors’ Caucus Update
TDW 2013
Art DeCross MD AGAFAssociate Professor
Gastroenterology and Hepatology DivisionUniversity of Rochester Medical Center
Who are we?
Rafiki: The question is, who... are you?
For the new guys…The question might be:
We are this nation’s 156 GI Fellowship Training Programs#
SMALL MEDIUM BIG
3 fellows/year1-2 fellows/year > 4 /year*
*median 4 Range 4-10
30% 50% 20%
# Data from 2009 GI Fellowship Training environment survey
Mission Environment
ALL
SMALL
MEDIU
M BIG0
102030405060708090
100
TotalClinicalResearch
CLINICAL n=63
RESEARCH n=36
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
SMALLMEDIUMBIG
Why are we here?(Why create a Caucus?)
One good reason: Programs self-identified* with INADEQUATE OR MARGINAL RESOURCES
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ALL SMALL MEDIUM BIG
TotalAT RISK
37%42%60%
46%
# of programs
* Data from 2009 GI Fellowship Training environment survey
Another good reason:Because this is what training used to look like
Apprenticeship model: Spend 3 years as my GI fellow, & you are a gastroenterologist.
GI FELLOWJuly 1, every year
And this is what someone wants it to look like…
Yes, the “M” word.
And it is usually at this point you New guys realize you need Indispensable Program Director Tools
How do we control our training environment?
Ideally…
GI Training Environment
AGA Training
Committee
ACG Training
Committee
Our profession would shape and guide the training environment, robustly responsive and adaptive to changing needs.
AASLD Training
Committee
ASGE Training
Committee
In Reality…
GI Fellowship Training Programs
AGA
ACG
ACGME dictates rules and defines the training environment. Programs are isolated. Input from the profession is well intentioned
but was prone to being slow, sporadic, unilateral and uncoordinated.
AASLD
ASGE
ACGME
ACGME(“we’re here to help”)
Program Director(“please stop helping”)
Why have a GI PD Caucus…
GI Training program environment
- GI PD Caucus -
AGAACGAASLD ASGE
ACGME
Isolated training programs
– lonely GI PDs -
Provide a more uniform training environment through sharing.
Coordinate a more responsive and deliberate support from the profession.
Caucus Mission Statement1. To serve the professional administrative
needs of all GI Fellowship Training Directors.
2. To more effectively promote the educational and training goals of our Profession, as advocated through all of our professional colleges, societies and associations.
3. To create a more effective interaction between our training programs and the agencies of GME which regulate them.
Functional objectives• Create a forum for rapid response to identifying and
addressing issues affecting training programs.
• Provide access to Training program directors’ perspective on agenda items advanced through our Education and Training committees, and on ACGME issues.
• Create a mechanism to more effectively communicate and implement shared educational and training goals of the Profession.
• Create standardized, validated tools and identify resources for program administration.
Functional Objectives- simplified -
• Identify the issues
• Facilitate communication
• Create the tools
Updated activities• Communication:– Match timeline shift finalized.– Chris Bowlus MD, PD UC Davis, represented GI– PD Caucus committed to measuring impact:• 2011 Match PDs and 1st year fellows surveyed
• Same survey will be conducted following Dec 2012 Match for the entering class of July 2013.
• Major concern remains the potential impact of the shortened interview season.
Just how healthyis the Match?
(after timeline shift?)
GI Fellowship Match Participation
*The NRMP lists this column as certified programs, counting all of the participating tracks in gastroenterology, as many as four for any single program. Excluding military programs, there are approximately 156 GI fellowship programs that are eligible to participate in the NRMP/SMS giving GI programs a 92% participation rate for positions starting in July 2013. NRMP and AGA Statistics (2013)
DATA from 2007-2012: courtesy of Deborah D. Proctor MD
Start Date Tracks* Programs Positions Total Matched
Offered Applicants Applicants
2007 134 112 285 585 276
2008 150 123 325 622 313
2009 153 126 339 608 328
2010 153 127 361 627 345
2011 157 130 383 642 362
2012 162 134 399 664 387
2013 171 144 433 695 418
Match survey (pre-timeline shift)• Existing first year fellows surveyed on Match
kinetics
• 72 respondents of 362 matched first year applicants (~20%)
• Recall: “old” Match completed application due mid-R2 year, required rotations, research, career plans, mentoring etc. to solidify as an intern
(pre-timeline shift)
Did you feel rushed in making your decision to enter the GI
Match process?
Yes No
80%
20%
(pre-timeline shift)Do you feel you had enough
time to build a solid CV for the GI Match process?
Yes No28%
72%
(pre-timeline shift)
0 - 10 11 ~ 25 26 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 > 1000
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Column2
How many programs did you apply to in the Match?
# of program applications per applicant
(pre-timeline shift)
1~3 4~6 7~9 10~12 13-15 >150
5
10
15
20
25
30
Column2
How many programs did you get to interview at?
# of interviews per applicant
(pre-timeline shift)
Do you wish you had applied to:
More programs Less programs
I applied to just the right number
69%
24%
7%
(pre-timeline shift)
0 1 2 3 4 5 >50
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Series 3
How many interviews did you decline due to unavoidable conflicts or lack of duty coverage?
# of interviews declined, per applicant, due to conflicts
(pre-timeline shift)• How many weeks were between your first
interview date and your last interview date?
– MEAN: 10.3 weeks (pre-timeline shift)
– MEDIAN: 10 weeks (pre-timeline shift)
Reminder: pre-timeline shift: Interview season technically Jan 1 thru May 21 (20 weeks max)practically Feb 1 thru May 1 (13 weeks)
(pre-timeline shift)
Did you feel rushed in for-mulating your match list after you interviewed?
Yes No
98.6%
1.4%
(pre-timeline shift)
1 2 3 4~5 >50.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Series 3
Which ranked program on your list did you match?
What choice was your program (that you matched) on your rank-order list?
Match survey (pre-timeline shift)• GI Program Directors surveyed• 16/158 respondents = ~ 10%• 1. How many positions were offered in the
clinical track? Mean: 2.6
• 2. How many applicants were interviewed for your clinical track? Mean 37 (14.2 : 1)
• 3. How many applicants were ranked for your clinical track? Mean 25 (9.6 : 1)
Match survey (pre-timeline shift)• 8. What was the lowest rank # of the last
applicant to match at your program on your rank order list? (i.e. how far down the list did you go to fill the clinical positions at your program)
rank 1-7 rank 8-15 rank 16-25 rank >250
1
2
3
4
5
6
Series 3
Updated activities• Creating the tools:
– Focusing on curriculum modules for niche areas of the curriculum:
– Nutrition module: Completed!
– In various stages of progress:• Practice Management (Ryan Madanick MD)• Women’s Health Issues in GI (Kathryn Peterson MD)• Geriatrics (Charlene Prather MD)• Motility (TBD)
We need you to volunteer!Join a committee and share your expertise!
Early Challenges for the Caucus
Isolated training programs
Early Challenges for the Caucus…
GI Training program environment
AGAACGAASLD ASGE
ACGME
Provide a more uniform training environment through sharing.
Coordinate a more responsive and deliberate support from the profession.
Challenges
Program Director(“please stop helping”)
How do we go from this….
To this…everyone on the same team?
Governance Redesign of the GI Program Directors’ Caucus
Existing structureGI Training
program environment
From the 156 GI programs, a demographically representative steering committee body, selected based on program size and
training mission (clinical vs research)
PD Steering Committee
AGA training committeeACG training
committee
AASLD training committee ASGE training
committee
AGA governing boardASGE
governing boardACG governing
board
AASLD governing board
G8
Existing structure
• Problems:– Not nimble– Not timely– Competing agendas– 5th wheel - most of the training committees not
consulting with us, not sure where we fit in.
Proposed Structure
Governance Redesign of the GI Program Directors’ Caucus
AASLD
2012-2014ACG
2012-2014AGA
2012-2013ASGE
2012-2013
AASLD
2012-2013ACG
2012-2013AGA
2012-2014ASGE
2012-2014
Steering Committee
Big Research
2012- 2013
Medium
Clinical
2012-2014
Small
Clinical
2012-2014
Big Research
2012-2014
Medium
Clinical
2012-2013
Medium
Clinical
2012-2013
Small
Clinical
2012-2013
Medium
Research
2012-2013
Medium
Clinical
2012-2014
Small
Clinical
2012-2014
Advisory Board
Advisory Board
Steering Committee
AGA training cmt
ACG training cmt
AASLD training cmt
ASGE training cmt
AGA GB
ASGE GB
ACG GBAASLD GB
Incoming chair for the GI Program Directors’ Caucus
Thomas J. Savides MD• Professor, UC SanDiego• Executive Vice Chairman, UCSD Dept of Medicine • GI Program Director – June 2004 to present• Advanced Endo Training Director – 2001 - present• Clinical Services Chief, UCSD Gastroenterology• ASGE Training Committee 2005-07• ASGE Governing Board 2007-2010
Acknowledgements
• Course directors Walter Coyle and Jane Onken• Robert Sandler MD, AGA president supportive of
initiating the GI PD Caucus• AGA Education and Training committee which
nutured the development of the caucus• AGA staff, most particularly Ms. Tamara Jones of
the AGA, principle administrator for the Caucus • Countless volunteers among the GI Program
Directors
top related