Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Pediatrics. 2019 Jul;144(1). pii: e20183860. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3860. Epub 2019 Jun 18.

Defining Global Health Tracks for Pediatric Residencies.

Author information

1
Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; heather.haq@gmail.com.
2
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3
Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
4
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.
5
Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
6
Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
7
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
8
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
9
Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York, Queens, New York.
10
Children's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri; and.
11
Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Global health (GH) offerings by pediatric residency programs have increased significantly, with 1 in 4 programs indicating they offer a GH track. Despite growth of these programs, there is currently no widely accepted definition for what comprises a GH track in residency.

METHODS:

A panel of 12 pediatric GH education experts was assembled to use the Delphi method to work toward a consensus definition of a GH track and determine essential educational offerings, institutional supports, and outcomes to evaluate. The panelists completed 3 rounds of iterative surveys that were amended after each round on the basis of qualitative results.

RESULTS:

Each survey round had 100% panelist response. An accepted definition of a GH track was achieved during the second round of surveys. Consensus was achieved that at minimum, GH track educational offerings should include a longitudinal global child health curriculum, a GH rotation with international or domestic underserved experiences, predeparture preparation, preceptorship during GH electives, postreturn debrief, and scholarly output. Institutional supports should include resident salary support; malpractice, evacuation, and health insurance during GH electives; and a dedicated GH track director with protected time and financial and administrative support for program development and establishing partnerships. Key outcomes for evaluation of a GH track were agreed on.

CONCLUSIONS:

Consensus on the definition of a GH track, along with institutional supports and educational offerings, is instrumental in ensuring consistency in quality GH education among pediatric trainees. Consensus on outcomes for evaluation will help to create quality resident and program assessment tools.

PMID:
31213520
DOI:
10.1542/peds.2018-3860

Conflict of interest statement

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire
Loading ...
Support Center