ST. LOUIS – Many vascular surgery trainees felt unprepared to take the Registered Physician in Vascular Interpretation (RPVI) exam, according to a recent survey. However, trainees in a program without a structured noninvasive vascular laboratory (NIVL) curriculum felt particularly unprepared, said Daisy Chou, MD.
Kari Oakes/MDedge News
Dr. Daisy Chou
“There is wide variation in NIVL experience amongst vascular surgery training programs,” noted Dr. Chou, a vascular surgery fellow at the Ohio State University, Columbus. She presented survey results at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgical Society. The survey constructed by Dr. Chou and her colleagues went out to trainees in both 0+5 and 5+2 vascular surgery training programs in September, 2017, in 114 unique programs.
Eventually, trainees from just over half of the programs responded (N = 61 programs, 53.5%), said Dr. Chou. Using responses from individual trainees, the authors grouped programs into one of two categories: those whose trainees felt well prepared for the RPVI, and those whose trainees felt unprepared for the RPVI.
In addition to a yes/no question about preparedness, the survey also asked whether training programs had a structured curriculum; respondents were asked to identify specific NIVL-related training activities. The survey asked about individual didactic components, as well as whether the trainee spent individual time with an attending physician and hands-on time with vascular technologists. Respondents were asked about the amount of time, measured in half days per week, spent in the vascular laboratory.
Finally, the survey asked whether trainees took a pre-RPVI exam review course, and whether they passed the RPVI exam on their first attempt.
Overall, 34 of the programs with respondents (55.7%) had structured curricula; the same number included lectures. Twenty programs (32.8%) provided video content, and 29 (47.5%) used textbooks. Just 18 programs (29.5%) assigned articles.
One-on-one time spent with an attending physician and focused on NIVL techniques was reported for 32 programs (52.5%). More programs (n = 37; 60.7%) provided trainees hands-on experience with vascular technologists.
Most programs (n = 32; 52.5%) had trainees spending less than one half day per week in the vascular laboratory, according to survey respondents.
In terms of preparedness, respondents for over half of the programs did not respond to the question asking whether they felt prepared for the RPVI, presumably because they had not yet taken the exam. This, acknowledged Dr. Chou, was a significant limitation of the survey. There was a timing problem: Trainees were surveyed at the start of the 2017-2018 academic year, but the RPVI exam isn’t usually taken until the end of the final year of training, with review courses taken not long before that.
Of the 32 programs with trainees who reported taking the RPVI exam, 18 had trainees who felt unprepared, and 14 program had trainees who felt well prepared. About a quarter of programs (N = 15; 24.6%) had trainees who took a review course prior to taking the exam.
Dr. Chou and her colleagues then examined the survey responses another way, seeing what differentiated the programs whose trainees felt well prepared from those with trainees who felt unprepared.
Statistically, the clear standout was whether the program had a structured curriculum: The 14 programs with a structured curriculum all had students who reported feeling well prepared. Just one-third of the 18 programs with unprepared students had a structured curriculum, which was a significant difference (P = .0001).
Also, programs that assigned articles and those that gave formal lectures were more likely to have students who felt prepared to sit for the RPVI exam (P = .002 and .004, respectively). A higher number of programs that gave trainees hands-on time with vascular technologists had trainees who felt prepared, but the difference wasn’t quite statistically significant (P = .05).
Having taken a review course prior to the exam was associated with feeling well prepared (P = .03).
Dr. Chou and her colleagues performed a logistic regression analysis to arrive at the educational components associated with the highest odds for trainees feeling well prepared. Lectures and articles came out on top in this analysis (odds ratios for feeling well prepared, 15.88 and 15.97, respectively). Hands-on time with vascular technologists had an odds ratio of 5.12 for feeling prepared.
Taking a review course boosted preparedness as well, with an odds ratio of 11.85 for feeling well prepared for the RPVI exam. This created a bit of a conundrum for the investigators, said Dr. Chou: “All well prepared programs had a structured NIVL curriculum, but most of their trainees still took an RPVI review course, so it’s unclear if the structured curriculum or the review course is responsible for trainees feeling well prepared for the RPVI exam,” she said.
An important caveat to the analysis of survey results, said Dr. Chou, is that “It’s unknown how these results will translate into pass rates.
“Vascular surgery leadership should not leave NIVL education to review courses,” said Dr. Chou. The ultimate goal, she said, should be to achieve expertise in the service of providing better patient care. To this end, Dr. Chou and her coauthors recommend that a structured NIVL curriculum be incorporated into vascular surgery training, and that the program include time spent with vascular technologists, a formal lecture-based component, and structured reading, as is provided by a journal club.
Dr. Chou reported no conflicts of interest, and no external sources of funding.