Stakeholder Perspectives on Building, Supporting, & Sustaining Clinician Educator Tracks in Neurology Residency: An Explorative Qualitative Study
Hend Heikal1, Ethan Chang1, Sarah Parauda2, Dan Shalev3, Jeremy Moeller4, Galina Gheihman5, Nuri Jacoby6
1College of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, 2Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, 3Weill Cornell Medicine, 4Yale University, 5Mass General Brigham and Harvard Medical School, 6SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University and Maimonides Medical Center
Objective:

To characterize stakeholder perspectives on building and sustaining clinician educator (CE) tracks in neurology residency programs and opportunities for national collaboration.


Background:

Clinician educator (CE) tracks provide structured training in teaching, scholarship, and educational leadership during residency and support CE career development. A growing number of residency programs now offer CE tracks [1]. However, limited evidence guides how these tracks are structured, administered, and evaluated, and no formal guidelines exist for institutions interested in implementing one. Building on a prior national survey of program directors (PDs) [1], we explored stakeholder perspectives on barriers and facilitators to establishing and sustaining CE tracks, as well as potential national initiatives to support their development.


Design/Methods:

We used purposive convenience sampling to recruit key informants including CE track directors, PDs interested in starting a track, and residents enrolled in CE tracks. Semi-structured interviews explored current CE tracks, ideal future CE tracks, and desired national initiatives or resources. We are undertaking a hybrid inductive–deductive thematic analysis of transcripts. Data collection and analysis are ongoing concurrently; thematic sufficiency will guide sample size. 


Results:

We have conducted eighteen interviews with CE track directors (n=6) and PDs (n=6) and residents (n=6) to date; a total of 22 is anticipated. Preliminary themes highlight barriers to implementation (e.g. limited time, absence of standardized curricula, and insufficient funding) despite perceived benefits for residents (e.g. enhanced confidence, professional educator identity formation, and preparation for academic careers). Potential national initiatives included faculty development seminars, cross-institutional mentorship, and consensus guidelines.


Conclusions:

CE tracks play a critical role in preparing neurology residents for CE careers yet remain underutilized. Our preliminary findings suggest that while these tracks foster educator skill development and identity formation, their growth is limited by resource and structural barriers. Stakeholder-informed national initiatives could help standardize and expand CE training, strengthening the future neurology educator workforce.



10.1212/WNL.0000000000215672
Disclaimer: Abstracts were not reviewed by Neurology® and do not reflect the views of Neurology® editors or staff.