Providing 0.1 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Support to Fellowship Core Faculty Improves Faculty Involvement in Fellowship Education and Recruitment.

In 2022, the American Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) recommended that core faculty (CF) in medical subspecialty fellowships receive at least 0.1 full-time equivalent (FTE) salary support, with plans to enforce compliance in July 2023. After early feedback raised concerns about potential unintended consequences, ACGME deferred enforcement to July 2024. Hence, there is an urgent need to understand the ramifications of providing FTE support for CF. In 2020, the Yale hematology and medical oncology (HO) fellowship program began providing 0.1 FTE support to all CF. Perceptions regarding this were assessed via surveys distributed to all CF in 2021 and 2022 and to all HO fellows in 2021. The vast majority (83.3%) of CF survey respondents reported improved job satisfaction and an increased sense of involvement in the fellowship program as a result of the new 0.1 FTE-supported CF program. Most CF increased attendance at fellowship conferences, devoted more time to mentorship, and increased participation in recruitment. In free text comments, CF respondents described that providing 0.1 FTE support made them "feel rewarded," gave them "a sense of commitment" to the fellowship, and helped "offset clinical requirements." HO fellows reported "a positive impact" of the new program with faculty being "more present at lectures." The median number of times faculty were available to interview fellowship applicants rose markedly after introduction of the program. The FTE-supported CF program was viewed enthusiastically by fellows and faculty, resulting in increased CF involvement in fellowship education and recruitment.

Patient perspectives on ipilimumab across the melanoma treatment trajectory.

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab was the first FDA-approved agent for advanced melanoma to improve survival and represents a paradigm shift in melanoma and cancer treatment. Its unique toxicity profile and kinetics of treatment response raise novel patient education challenges. We assessed patient perceptions of ipilimumab therapy across the treatment trajectory. METHODS: Four patient cohorts were assessed at different time points relative to treatment initiation: (1) prior to initiation of ipilimumab (n = 10), (2) at weeks 10-12 before restaging studies (n = 11), (3) at week 12 following restaging studies indicating progression of disease (n = 10), and (4) at week 12 following restaging studies indicating either a radiographic response or disease stability (n = 10). Patients participated in a semistructured qualitative interview to assess their experiences with ipilimumab. Quality of life was assessed via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and its Melanoma-specific module. RESULTS: Perceived quality of life was comparable across cohorts, and a majority of the sample understood side effects from ipilimumab and the potential for a delayed treatment response. Patients without progression of disease following restaging studies at week 12 held more positive views regarding ipilimumab compared to patients who had progressed. CONCLUSION: Patients generally regarded ipilimumab positively despite the risk of unique toxicities and potential for delayed therapeutic responses; however, those with progression expressed uncertainty regarding whether taking ipilimumab was worthwhile. Physician communication practices and patient education regarding realistic expectations for therapeutic benefit as well as unique toxicities associated with ipilimumab should be developed so that patients can better understand the possible outcomes from treatment.