What question did this study set out to answer?

Assess the exposure and training of PCCM fellows in pulmonary rehabilitation across the US.

May 20, 2026

B74-03 Understanding Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship Education and Training in Pulmonary Rehabilitation

Puntos clave

Assess the exposure and training of PCCM fellows in pulmonary rehabilitation across the US.
An electronic survey was distributed to PCCM fellows during the 2024-2025 academic year.
The survey reached 29 PCCM fellowship programs with a total of 319 fellows, achieving a 9.4% response rate.
Respondents were asked about their exposure to and education on pulmonary rehabilitation.
97% of respondents had a PR program at their training site, but 70% had never participated in a PR session.
33% received no hours of lecture-based education, while 60% received only 1-2 hours.
73% felt confident referring to PR, but only 50% were confident coaching patients on PR benefits.

Resumen

Abstract Rationale The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) curriculum for US pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowships states that fellows must have “exposure to pulmonary rehabilitation.” This broad recommendation likely results in varied educational and practical exposure to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). PR is a key management component of patients with chronic respiratory diseases and has been demonstrated to improve symptoms of chronic dyspnea, exercise tolerance and quality of life. Despite its benefit, PR remains significantly underutilized, and patients continue to be under referred. If PCCM fellows do not have exposure to PR, they may lack sufficient knowledge to refer patients appropriately. Our objective was to assess the current state of US PCCM Fellowship education and training experience in PR by surveying current fellows. Methods An electronic survey was developed and distributed to US PCCM fellows in training during the 2024-2025 academic year. It was distributed by the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors (APCCMPD) after acceptance and review by their formal survey dissemination policy. It was sent out twice over 5 weeks to APCCMPD participating PCCM Fellowship program directors, who then emailed it to their current fellows; it was anonymous and completion by the fellows was voluntary. Results The survey was distributed to 29 PCCM fellowship programs to a total of 319 fellows. We received 30 responses for a response rate of 9.4%. The respondents represented all years of fellowship, all US regions, and diverse program affiliations. While 97% of respondents had a PR program at their training site, 70% had never observed or participated in a PR session. 33% received no hours of lecture-based education and 60% received only 1-2 hours. Furthermore, 60% of respondents were not confident in describing the exercise or educational component of PR and 40% did not know the locations of the PR programs available in their practice locations. Despite this, 73% of respondents felt confident referring to PR, but only 50% felt confident coaching their patients on the expected benefits of PR. Conclusion While fellows may feel confident making referrals to PR, our survey results suggest that limited exposure and experience with PR may negatively impact the quality of referrals and discussions with patients regarding expected benefits, as few fellows observe PR and many receive no lecture-based education. Our survey demonstrates the need for curriculum development with high yield recommendations for exposure to PR during PCCM fellowship training. This abstract is funded by: None

Me gusta

Guardar