Pediatric residency education.
OBJECTIVE
On February 1, 1997, new pediatric Residency Review Committee guidelines became effective. Eighteen months later, pediatric residency program directors were queried regarding the implementation of these guidelines. Because both the challenge to implement these guidelines and the opportunities to shape pediatric graduate medical education rest with the program directors, obtaining the feedback and suggestions from this group is seen as the keystone of future planning endeavors.


METHODS
A 20-question multiple-choice/opened-ended questionnaire was sent to the 201 members of the Association of Pediatric Program Directors in 2 mailings in August and September 1998.


RESULTS
A final response rate of 70% was achieved. Very few program directors reported difficulties in instituting the new residency review committee requirements. The exceptions to this pattern were those requirements pertaining to limitations on time spent in intensive care experience and in the neonatal intensive care unit, wherein 34% of the respondents identified barriers. Although the majority of respondents regarded these requirements as very good or sufficient, some program directors expressed concern regarding insufficient amounts of time available for preparation in intensive care (18%), neonatal intensive care unit (22%), behavioral/developmental pediatrics (16%), and in adolescent medicine (13%). In general, programs have been more successful in defining new competencies than in developing curricula to teach them. The majority of respondents also indicated that their residents' exposure was excellent or satisfactory in all 6 of the following practice settings: private office-based practice for continuity clinic, private office-based practice for outpatient rotation, predominately managed care practice, community clinics for continuity clinic, community clinics for outpatient rotation, and hospital-based practice for continuity clinic. They also indicated that they had no serious concerns about the types of career development assistance offered to residents and the types of follow-up tracking of residents.


CONCLUSIONS
The findings from this survey have reaffirmed the merit of the current system of pediatric residency education. They have also revealed the commitment of program directors to address the complex issues generated by the evolution of health care delivery, and thereby contribute to the optimal provision of pediatric health care now and in the future.
Future of Pediatric Education II (FOPE II) Project, American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007-1098, USA.
H J
HJ
Mulvey
E A
EA
Ogle-Jewett
T L
TL
Cheng
R L
RL
Johnson
D000293:Adolescent; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D003479:Curriculum; D004503:Education, Medical, Graduate; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007396:Internship and Residency; D010372:Pediatrics / Q000193:education*; D015397:Program Evaluation; D014481:United States