113 - Assessment of Radiology Education in Physician Assistant Training

Poster Board Number: 113
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Alexa Hryniuk - University of Manitoba; Terry Li - University of Manitoba

Abstract Body : Introduction & Objective

In Canada, the national expectation is that physician assistants (PAs) are competent in interpreting diagnostic imaging. To achieve this, PA students must develop a strong foundation in normal and abnormal radiological anatomy. However, it is unclear if this expectation is being met as there are no published standards on radiology education in Canadian PA programs. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the status of radiology education in the anatomy and diagnostic imaging curriculums in a Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) program at the University of Manitoba.

Materials and Methods

Components of the MPAS curriculum were assessed through the UMLearn (Desired to Learn) educational platform. PAEP 7010 (Anatomy) and PAEP 7082 (Diagnostic Imaging) session objectives were assessed for radiological involvement followed by a visual inspection of sessions noting imaging modalities and normal vs pathological anatomical radiologic interpretation.

Results

PAEP 7010 is a 3-credit hour course while PAEP 7082 is 1-credit hour, making up 4.71% and 1.09% of pre-clinical curricular time, respectively. While there are no formal radiology learning objectives for PAEP 7010, 12 of 21 lectures contained image interpretation, resulting in 6.4% of the anatomy curriculum time focused on radiological learning. The most emphasis was placed on x-ray (2.7%), followed by CT (1.8%), MRI (1.4%), and ultrasound (1.4%). Comparably, all objectives for PAEP 7082 had radiological requirements with 10 of the 11 educational sessions containing image interpretation (90.9% of the curriculum). Once again, the most emphasis was placed on x-ray (72.7%), followed by CT (18.2%). Interestingly, no MRI or ultrasound education was provided in this course.

Conclusion

The MPAS program has radiology education in both an anatomy and a diagnostic imaging course, however, it remains unclear if this is sufficient for student’s education. Furthermore, the MPAS curriculum favours x-ray education, while attention to ultrasound, an emerging modality used by PAs, is negligible.

Significance

PAs must develop a strong foundation in imaging interpretation to successfully transition into practice. As x-ray is the most frequently billed modality by PAs, this validates the attention the MPAS program is directing towards x-ray. However, ultrasound education is minimal despite increasing point-of-care utilization by PAs. Without exposure to basic ultrasound skills, confidence and competence may be impeded, compromising patient care. Future directions for this research involve conducting surveys and semi-structured interviews to gain a deeper understanding of PAs experiences and perspectives with radiology education during their studies and into practice.