Objective: The purpose of our study was to assess if sentiments regarding the accreditation and certification of Movement Disorders Fellowships have changed over the past five years, and if the curricula of fellowship programs have concurrently changed.

Background: Movement Disorders fellowship programs are currently not accredited and there is no form of certification of trainees who graduate from these fellowship programs. We previously conducted a study which assessed fellowship program directors’ sentiments regarding accreditation and certification, and we found that there was a nearly equal bimodal distribution of sentiments regarding accreditation and certification. Many specialties have pursued accreditation and certification to ensure uniformity and quality in residency and fellowship training, however, the reasons why leaders in the subspecialty do not want to pursue formalization remain unclear.

Method: A 15-question survey was distributed to 43 Movement Disorders program directors in 2015 and 2020. The survey included questions that addressed program director’s sentiments regarding accreditation and certification, Movement Disorder fellowship program size, and curricula. Subjects were selected from the AAN and MDS directories. The response rate was 67.4% in 2015 and 64.5% in 2020.

Results: In 2020, 51.6% (48.3% in 2015) of program directors are in favor of accreditation and 37.9% (51.7% in 2020) are in favor of a certification. In 2015 it was noted that program directors thought that program uniformity was the most significant barrier to pursuing accreditation, whereas in 2020, program funding was the most significant barrier. In 2020, programs were relatively uniform in their curricula in terms of pathologies treated, however, there was variation amongst programs in procedure training, specifically microelectrode recording, Duopa pump management, and ultrasound-guided botulinum toxin administration.

Conclusion: Our study supports that sentiments towards accrediting and certifying the Movement Disorders subspecialty are relatively unchanged, with more respondents not being in favor of certification. Program directors continue to perceive a lack of standardization and that funding concerns are more significant over the past five years. Our study also demonstrates that programs are uniform in curricula, although there is increasingly more variation in rates of procedure training.

« Back to MDS Virtual Congress 2020

MDS Abstracts - https://www.mdsabstracts.org/abstract/the-accreditation-and-certification-of-the-movement-disorders-subspecialty-a-five-year-follow-up-study/