231 - Novel Collaborative Curriculum for Pediatric Neuroradiology: Neonatal Neuroimaging Model

Poster Number: 231
Publication Number: 231.332

Elizabeth K. Sewell, Emory University; Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, United States; Sarah S. Milla, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, United States; Nadja Kadom, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, United States

Background: Board content specifications for neonatology fellows include the indications and limitations of specific neuroimaging studies and interpretation of imaging studies with understanding of major patterns of injury. Graduate medical education (GME) increasingly recognizes the importance of adult learning principles (andragogy) such as problem-based formatting utilizing learners' experience with relevance and applicability to their jobs or lives. Andragogy has been effectively utilized in GME, and some initial studies have shown feasibility and support among neonatal fellows and faculty.

Objective: To design and evaluate a formal collaborative neuroimaging curriculum between pediatric neuroradiology and neonatal medicine geared towards neonatology fellows that was clinically relevant and addressed neonatal-perinatal board content specifications from the American Board of Pediatrics.

Design/Methods: A 4-session curriculum was developed by a pediatric neuroradiologist and neonatologist that engaged fellow learners for 1 hour at quarterly intervals. The curriculum focused on interactive case-studies based on Knowles’ assumptions of adult learners that highlighted key neonatal neuroimaging findings and neurological disorders. Standardized evaluations consisting of Likert scale and open-ended questions were collected intermittently starting in 2019. Analysis quantified summary data among learners.

Results: Between 7-8 neonatology fellows participated annually (15 total since program inception). Fourteen sessions have been taught to date. Curriculum evolved over time with ongoing quality assurance based on fellow feedback to targeted session topics with specific neuroimaging and type of brain injury (Figure 1). Each session consisted of relevant preparatory reading, case studies from recent patients, interpretation of neuroimaging, and relevance of imaging to clinical management. A median of 4 evaluations were completed on average for 7 sessions (26 total evaluations). Mean Likert scale evaluations can be seen in Table 1. 100% of evaluators agreed or strongly agreed that the sessions delivered important teaching topics and that the presentation was practical and useful.Conclusion(s): Real-life case studies with targeted incorporation of neuroimaging and high-yield neurological disorders are an effective teaching method for trainees in neonatology. This knowledge will aid future neonatologists who may practice in hospitals without trained pediatric neuroradiologists. Future evaluation can include learner knowledge assessments or other learning outcomes.
Figure 1Description of Sessions
Table 1Mean Likert Scale Evaluations