Article Text

PDF
OP0011 Rheumatology Training Experience – European Survey Among Rheumatology Trainees & Newly Qualified Specialists
  1. F. Sivera1,
  2. S. Ramiro2,
  3. N. Cikes3,
  4. M. Dougados4,5,
  5. L. Gossec6,7,
  6. T.K. Kvien8,
  7. I.E. Lundberg9,
  8. P. Mandl10,
  9. A. Moorthy11,
  10. S. Panchal11,
  11. J.A. da Silva12,
  12. J.W. Bijlsma13,14
  13. on behalf of Working Group on Training in Rheumatology across Europe
  1. 1Hospital Gral Univ Elda, Elda, Spain
  2. 2LUMC, Leiden, Netherlands
  3. 3University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
  4. 4Hôpital Cochin
  5. 5INSERM (U1153): Epidemiologie Clinique et Biostatistiques, PRES Sorbonne Paris-Cité, Université Paris Descartes
  6. 6Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06
  7. 7Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France
  8. 8Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  9. 9Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  10. 10University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  11. 11University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
  12. 12Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Coimbra, Portugal
  13. 13ARC, Amsterdam
  14. 14UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

Abstract

Objectives To describe the confidence and training experience acquired during rheumatology training in 21 core competences across the different European countries.

Methods As part of a European project to evaluate the differences and similarities in training in rheumatology across Europe, we developed an online survey to assess the training experience. The target population was trainees in rheumatology and rheumatologists certified in the past 5 years. We selected 21 competences, core to rheumatology clinical practice, from the UEMS European curriculum framework (1). For each competence, respondents were asked to assess the confidence in their abilities (0-10 numerical rating scale), the existence of formal education (yes/no), the exposure to patients (0; 1-10; 11-50; 51-100; 101-150; >150) and the existence of an assessment (yes/no) where appropriate. All questions referred to the training period. The survey (June-December 2014) was disseminated in each country by a national PI.

Results We gathered 1433 answers to the survey of which 1243 could be included in the analysis (28% of overall target population). Respondents came from the 41 EULAR countries with rheumatology training (30% male, 58% trainees). A summary of the results is presented in Table 1.

For any given competence, mean confidence was higher in respondents who had received formal education than in those who had not. Similarly, for all clinical competences and rheumatologic techniques, mean confidence was also higher amongst those who had a higher patient exposure during their training that in those who managed ≤10 patients with that given disease. Mean acquired confidence was also higher in respondents who had a longer training period (internal medicine plus rheumatology) than in those with a shorter training period for all competences except osteoporosis and hand Xray interpretation. The level of confidence was also higher for specialists (vs trainees).

Conclusions The acquired confidence in competences during the rheumatology training program considered core for rheumatology practice is variable, but overall reasonably high. Most of the trainees seem to receive formal education and have some patient exposure in all competences, though only around half are assessed in each competence.

References

  1. European Board of Rheumatology (a section of UEMS). The European Rheumatology Curriculum Framework. www://dgrh.de/fileadmin/media/Praxis_Klinik/european_curriculum_uems_april_2008.pdf

Disclosure of Interest None declared

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.