European Curriculum Development Project in Neurotology

1. European Curriculum Development Project in Neurotology NORWAY OCTOBER 2008 Thomas Somers

2. Background • Training in O&NO is central to the EAONO mission • Goals • To maintain high professional levels in Neuro-otology • Harmonize teaching and knowledge • To gain (also medico-legal) recognition of this subspeciality of ORL&HNS • This can only be achieved through excellence in a structured training programme • Need for a “fit for purpose” curriculum • Aim is to develop a 2-year’s master level curriculum appropriate to the needs of advanced trainees in neuro-otology

3. Neuro- Otology • Rare and complicated disorders in otology and skullbase surgery • No current official recognition as a discipline • Present centers are run by self-made men • No official university programmes • Many cases are not treated or inadequately treated • Risk of medico-legal implications

4. European Curriculum Development Project in Neurotology • Prof. J. Magnan co-ordinated a submission to the EU through its Socrates programme (2006) • Administration was done through the University of Marseille (Legal representative: Prof Berland) • The bid was approved and funded in 2006

5. Consortium of 20 partner centers • Prof Ramos (Palma de Gran Canarias) • Prof Ramsden (Manchester) • Prof.Hüttenbrink (Köln) • Prof O’Donoghue (Nottingham) • Prof.Cenjor (Madrid) • Prof Tran-ba-huy (Paris) • Prof Offeciers (Antwerp) • Prof Lenarz (Hannover) • Prof Filipo (Roma) • Prof Ozgirgin (Ankara) • Prof Bebear (Bordeaux) • Prof Wszyfter (Poznan) • Prof Dubreuil (Lyon) • Prof Gersdorff (Brussels) • Prof Pauw (Rotterdam) • Prof Sanna (Chieti) • Prof Laszig (Freiburg) • Prof Zenner (Tübingen • Prof Uziel (Montpellier)

6. Master Degree in Neuro-otology • The curriculum development must be trans-national • So far no centre is able to cover all aspects • Large variety of knowledge and practice in different countries • Using the strengths of the various participating centers • Needs = 1 neuro-otologist for every 2 mio inh

7. Practicalities • 2007 – 2008 • Bring together 20 EU partner centers • Create a common 2 y curriculum • Incorporate student and staff mobility • 2009 • Develop e-based (eg video-conferencing) and web-based educational materials to support clinical training • Create assessment standards for students, teachers and university centers • Expand the network of university center partners

8. Selection • After completion of training in ORL-HNS followed by a training in advanced otology training • Advanced otological knowledge and skills • Human and ethical skills, communicator, scholar (in terms of teaching and research), team-worker, manager of resources • Exact criteria have to be defined

9. Curriculum • A vast multicentric work has been done to define the scope of modern Neuro-otology and the relevant knowledge base, as well as clinical and technical skills needed for competent practice • Curriculum for a 2 y Master type diploma in accordance to the Bologna rules 120 credits divided into 2 y and 4 semesters

10. Credits • 1 credit = 30 student work hours • Lecture hours: 1 H class time = + 5 H prep • so e.g. 5 H lectures + 25 H prep = 30 H = 1 credit • Lab hours: 1 H lab = + 2 H prep • So e.g. 10 h lab = 20 F prep = 30 H = 1 credit • Surgical theatre: no prep • So e.g. 30 H theatre = 30 student hours = 1 credit

15. Some examples of the curriculum: • Practicum and analysis in electro-physiologic testing deafness, vertigo, facial paralysis • Knowledge in oto-and neuro imaging • Training in skull base surgery • Parallel teaching at the university centres • Cross border teaching for special zones of expertise (e.g. NF2) • eLearning website • Logbook • Scientific study to be presented at an international forum

16. Assessment • Standards assessing competence will need to be defined (need to be reliable, high validity, low cost and practicable) • Structured examination (clinical or written)? • Work-based evaluation?

17. Stage in life of project Outputs: By the end of this stage we will have achieved / produced Activities leading to this output Activity to be this date and completed date Start started by by this Complete Partners / Persons i- nvolved Time input (person / days or person /months) 1 Beginning Development -task division within working groups and due dates for subtasks -confirmation of FM and CM dates for duration of project -establish working & communication protocol between participants -administrative secretary hired 1st -1st Coordinators' Meeting (CM) -2nd CM -1st -1st Full Meeting (FM) Early October 2006 Late October 2006 -Coordinators -All project participants - Administrative Secretary -Coordinators – 2 working days + 2 day s preparation -All project participants – 1 working day plus 1 day preparation 2 Mid-Development -Informational website online and 1B1 evaluation by FM mid development phase project evaluation -1st draft of Curriculum presented at FM external input by North American expert -eLearning working group formed -webmaster hired and website put online -working groups complete work on curriculum -coordinators complete 1St draft -3m CM 2nd FM 2 FM Oct 2006 Oct 2007 _ -Coordinators -All project participants -Administrative Secretary -Webmaster -Coordinators – 3 full working days + 24 days preparation (per person) -All project participants – 1 working day + 12 days preparation 3 Post Development – Beginning Dissemination/Implementation -final version of curriculum approved at FM -new working groups & new task division with due dates -evaluation of informational website – recommendations for changes -1st review of eLearning website -Working Groups and Coordinators work to finalize curriculum -all information posted to informational Website by webmaster and administrative secretary -webmaster & eLearning working group use the draft version of curriculum to develop draft of eLearning site 5th CM -6th CM -3rd FM Oct 2007 June 2008 -Coordinators -All project participants -Administrative Secretary -Webmaster -Coordinators – 3 full working days + 24 days preparation (per person) -All project participants – 1 working day + 12 days preparation

18. 4 Mid-Dissemination/Implementation -review and evaluation of draft assessment standards and systems -draft publications presented for approval 2nd review of eLearning website – g recommendations for final changes -new partners approved -review of accreditation progress process -final version of informational website presented -working group on assessment finishes draft -all project partner present finalized curriculum to their university for approval -webmaster completes work on informational website -search for new partners conducted -working group on publications finishes and presents final draft to coordinators -7th CM June 2008 April 2009 -Coordinators -All project participants -Administrative Secretary -Webmaster -Coordinators – 1 full working days + 12 days preparation (per person) -All project participants 6 days preparation 5 End Dissemination/Implementation -final project evaluation -plan for post-funding continuation of project decided -7th CM -8th CM 4th, FM -publications sent -articles published in journals and on academic websites -evaluation and assessment standards approved -eLearning site completed April 2009 June 2009 Coordinators All project participants -Administrative Secretary Webmaster -Coordinators – 3 full working days + 24 days preparation (per person) -All project participants – 1 working day + 12 days preparation

19. UEMS • Recommendations? • Working group together with EAONO?

20. Thank you