A multicenter analysis of didactic curricula in a hematology oncology fellowship program.
Authors: Mistry Ronak , Tawagi Karine , Abuali Inas , Armstrong Samantha Ann , Hausrath Daniel , DeYoung Sheila , Miranda Kayla Weiss , Mendelson Lauren , Valasapalli Srijan , Cockrell Dillon , Bloom Matthew Doran , Stempel Jessica M , Melody Megan Elizabeth , Berry Jonathan L , Patel Vivek 
Published: June 2024

9031

Background: Each hematology and oncology (H/O) fellowship program has a unique educational curriculum. Best practices about how to structure the curricula in H/O programs are limited. Here, we provide the results of a multicenter assessment to understand differences in H/O fellowship didactic curricula. Methods: H/O fellows were recruited via email to be site coordinators (SC) for a multicenter study investigating H/O educational experiences. In total, we identified SCs at 27 unique programs who enrolled in the study with leadership approval. Each SC received a REDCAP survey in which they granularly described their didactic curriculum. We present descriptive statistics from this background assessment sub-study. Results: There was even geographic distribution of the programs. Programs varied in size with median 16 fellows (range 4-33). Most (71%) reported that disease-specific didactic lectures were sporadically distributed throughout the year instead of being organized into blocks by disease type. For malignant H/O, the majority (93%) had disease-specific faculty deliver the lectures. For classical hematology, 18 SCs (64%) reported most lectures were given by topic experts, however 10 noted most lectures were given by fellows (22%) or program leadership (14%). Only 1 program had access to a curated didactic series for disease specific outpatient clinic experiences. Formal journal club (JC) was included in 24 programs (86%) while 3 programs had no JC and 1 had sporadic JC on certain rotations. Only 4 (17%) had statisticians present at any JC. Introductory statistic lectures were given at 8 programs (28%). Of these, 5 had one lecture, 2 had two lectures, and 1 had a formal 5 lecture series. Most programs (79%) integrated a board-review series. Reading assignments were not included in didactics by most programs (61%). A total of 23 programs (82%) recommended access to online videos while 5 (18%) did not. None reported mandatory requirements for video use prior to lecture content. Amongst those with video access, 20 used ASH Review Series and 17 programs used MD Anderson Board Review Series. Only one program provided access and encouraged use of the ASCO Education Series. Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study, we found significant variation in the didactic structure at H/O fellowships across the country. Most programs have sporadic lecture topics as opposed to organized longitudinal block didactics. There were more content experts leading lectures for malignant H/O compared to classical hematology. Not all programs have formal JC in their curriculum with only 4 programs involving a statistician. Few programs provide formal lectures in statistics. Access to online review videos is variable and only one program had recommended access to ASCO video resources. Further research is needed to identify best practices and establish uniformity in didactic curricula for H/O trainees.