Accessibility and Content of Fellowship Programs for Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract

Background The objective of this study was to assess the accessibility and content of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited general cardiology fellowship websites. Methods Using the online information provided by the Electronic Residency Application Services (ERAS), we compiled a list of ACGME-accredited cardiac fellowship programs. The program links on ERAS were evaluated followed by a standard Google search of the program name + “cardiology fellowship”. Each program website was evaluated on the basis of program content, applying/recruiting and education. Results At the time of this study, we reviewed 231 general cardiology fellowship programs provided through ERAS. Of the 231 programs, 12 were excluded due to broken links, repeated links on ERAS, and websites with a general lack of content. We analyzed the data collected from the remaining 219 programs to assess the availability and general content of those websites. Data collected revealed a general lack of information regarding application processing and educational services but were sufficient in providing program descriptions and contact information. Conclusions ERAS can be used to locate general cardiology fellowships participating in the current match; however, the links provided by the program websites on ERAS are lacking in general content and accessibility. Although most websites did contain enough information about their program, there was a distinct lack of key information provided typically in the education services and application process.

Evaluation of Online Critical Care Fellowship Programs

“…Similar studies from other specialties, including cardiovascular disease, surgical critical care, and orthopedic trauma surgery, also revealed their program websites' lack of content [4,6,7]. This lack of content can be detrimental to programs attempting to recruit prospective fellows, especially as the number of applicants finding their information online increases.…”

“…Of the 90 surgical critical care fellowship programs listed on the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) or American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) site, 36 programs (40%) had an inaccurate program director in comparison to the 49 (94.23%) websites provided by critical care fellowships and only 25 (20%) surgical critical care fellowship websites contained a program description, faculty list, curriculum, and current/past fellows list [ 4 ]. Critical care websites contained less information regarding critical care didactic education (57.69%) when compared to cardiology didactic information (77.6%) [ 6 ]. While orthopedic trauma surgery was able to reach 100% with program descriptions, critical care websites came close, at 94.23% [ 3 ].…”

“…Those included: working hyperlinks, Google location, program descriptions, program director, address, phone number, email, application information, special requirements, required rotations, call schedules/call responsibilities, conferences, and any ongoing research. This method is similar to those used in studies of other specialties such as orthopedics, cardiology, and surgical critical care [ 4 , 6 , 7 ]. The information obtained from the 52 programs was then compared to each other: whether or not links were present, present but not working, not present at all, or repeated.…”

“…Each hyperlink was then assessed if it could provide a streamlined way to the fellowship website and how many steps it would take to get to the specific fellowship website. As with other studies, a specific Google search was performed for each program: [Program name as seen on ERAS] + “critical care fellowship”, and the location of the link for the program was recorded as its location on Google [ 4 , 6 , 7 ].…”

“…Finally, content gathered from the program websites was evaluated in three categories: program description, the application process, and educational activities. These sections were chosen after reviewing other studies that had used those three larger categories [ 4 , 6 , 7 ]. The program description included: Google links, a program description + program director, phone numbers, emails, addresses, current + previous fellows, and current employment of alumni.…”