HemeOncoPoeisis: A fellow’s perspective on training

• Published in: Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 38; no. 15_suppl; p. e23000
• Main Authors: Farooqui, Marwah Wafa, Simeone, Stephen, Desai, Yatri, Srinivasan, Krishnan, Ghouse, Masood
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 20.05.2020
• ISSN: 0732-183X; 1527-7755
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e23000

Abstract only e23000 Background: The incidence of cancer is projected to increase 67% by 2030. Current projections suggest a 40% increase in demand for hematologists/oncologists (HO) yet only a 25% increase in trainees. This discrepancy between supply and demand represents an emerging challenge to public health. There are 3 types of training programs across the US: 1. Academic (69%), 2. Hybrid, which have both community and academic exposure (~15%), and 3. Community ( < 15%). The purpose of this study is to get feedback from fellows. Methods: Contact information was collected for 126 HO programs across the US and a short questionnaire was sent. Results: There were 36 respondents, 72% from academic programs, 20% from hybrid, and 8% were community based. 25%, 42%, and 33% were 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year fellows respectively. Only a quarter of the respondents had worked or pursued another fellowship prior to starting training and the majority were directly out of residency. Only 19% of the respondents indicated interest in practicing in the community setting, 30% wanted to practice in an academic-community hybrid, and 39% wanted to practice in an academic setting. Of note about 31% of academic fellows reported not attending any national meetings (ASH/ASCO/other) in the last 2 years, 71% of hybrid trainees reported attending more than two conferences, and 75% of the community trainees attended 1 or more national meetings. Most common concerns from trainees from all programs was workload, research support, and didactics. Most of the trainees (70%) felt prepared clinically, but only 40% felt prepared academically. See Table for additional results. Conclusions: Trainees in hybrid programs appear to be most satisfied with their training. Also, trainees in academic programs indicated they wanted more exposure to community settings for future jobs. A large HO workforce will be needed in the community setting yet there is a vacuum when it comes to community based HO training. Perhaps future directions in trainee education can be towards encouraging relationships between the academic and community centers to help trainees get a broad exposure in order to be prepared for the future demands the current projections predict. [Table: see text]