Congenital interventional cardiology fellowships are currently unaccredited by the ACGME, leading to significant variability in recruitment and training practices across North America. This study assessed satisfaction among recent trainees and identified opportunities for standardization and improvement. A web-based survey was distributed to pediatric and congenital interventional cardiologists, who had completed fellowship within the past 15 years in North America. Respondents provided feedback on their recruitment experiences, satisfaction with the process, and perspectives on training structure. A total of 69 individuals responded. Only 14% were satisfied with the current fellowship application and recruitment system, while 51% expressed dissatisfaction. A majority (55%) felt that a standardized match process would offer greater equity, and 83% favored a universal date for position offers. Nearly all respondents (n = 67; 97%) agreed there should be a formal date and method by which programs announce their intention to accept applications. Additionally, 82% supported incorporating structured feedback or milestones into training. The majority (77%) felt supported during training and 68% agreed that 12 months represented an adequate timeframe, but only 55% felt prepared to perform complex interventional procedures independently at the conclusion of their training year. Most respondents viewed the current non-standardized recruitment process unfavorably. There is a strong consensus favoring a universal timeline and increased structure in training, highlighting the opportunity for reform.
Nageotte et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: