Faculty Attitudes Toward Rhinology Fellowship Training: A Survey of Rhinology Fellowship Programs

The number of rhinology fellowship programs has grown rapidly over the past decade. To date, no standardization or accreditation process exists, raising the potential for disparate programs. The attitudes of faculty regarding training are important to elucidate the educational experience of rhinology fellowship. An anonymous, web-based survey of rhinology faculty assessed the subjective attitudes toward various domains of fellowship training including surgery, office-based procedures, research, and career development. A 5-point Likert-type scale assessing importance was used (1—not at all important, 5—extremely important). A total of 34 faculty (response rate 35.8%) completed the survey. The surgical procedures that received the highest mean importance scores were endoscopic surgery for advanced inflammatory disease (median？=？5), cerebrospinal fluid leak closure (5), and extended endoscopic sinus surgery (5). The procedures with the lowest scores were nasal valve repair (2), inferior turbinate surgery (3), and open approaches to the sinuses (4). A wide range of responses was noted for the minimum target number of fellow cases for the surveyed procedures. Higher importance scores were noted for direct attending supervision (5) when compared to fellow autonomy (4, P？<？.001) or shadowing (3.5, P？<？.001) in the operating room. Higher scores were noted for career preparation in academic (4) versus private practice (3, P？<？.001) and providing opportunities for clinical (4) versus basic science research (2, P？<？.001). The majority of faculty felt that there were too many fellowship positions with respect to the market place for private practice (58.8%), academic jobs (85.3%), and overall societal need (61.8%). A range of faculty attitudes with respect to fellowship training was noted in this study. Continued assessment and refinement of the educational experience in rhinology fellowships is necessary