Education Research: Shaping the Future of Epilepsy Fellowship Training in Canada

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background and Objectives: Epileptologists are neurologists with advanced training in the diagnosis and management of complex epilepsy. In Canada, epilepsy fellowship programs vary considerably in duration and content because of the lack of formal accreditation or standardized curricula. Contributing factors include regional differences in resources, infrastructure, and program-specific goals. Methods: To address this variability, the Canadian League Against Epilepsy established a working group to develop a national consensus framework for postgraduate epilepsy education. The process started with a comprehensive literature review of North American and international curricula and standards to ensure alignment. The nominal group technique involved 4 rounds with Canadian epilepsy educators, focusing on idea generation, sharing, discussion, and questionnaire completion on key topics. A 70% agreement threshold was set to establish consensus. Items not reaching this threshold were revisited in a final discussion round. Recorded discussions were analyzed, with the eventual goal of incorporating these findings into a national consensus guideline for epilepsy fellowship training in Canada. Results: Agreement was reached on core topics such as eligibility, fellowship duration, learning objectives, timing of skill acquisition, epilepsy surgery exposure, research involvement, evaluation methods, and accreditation. Areas lacking consensus underwent further exploration in a final survey round. The process also highlighted priorities for future work, including program accreditation and the development of national clinical examinations. Discussion: This study represents a foundational step in establishing unified standards for epilepsy fellowship training in Canada and reinforces the importance of national collaboration to promote excellence in epilepsy and EEG education.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.