I feel some need to respond to this post, mostly because I think what is said in here is misleading and also not based upon the most sound judgment.
Well, I wasn't sure which one of you was a neurotologist, but I guess I should have expected I would offend someone. I appreaciate your reply though, NPB, and I think your perspective is valid, and more seasoned than mine.
The gist of my response was that I am opposed to taking otology out of ENT residency, and I think I have sound experience and judgement to the effect of backing up that argument. Obviously, I am coming from a chief resident perspective, and I am not shy to say I want the opportunity to do everything I have been trained to do and feel comfortable doing once I get out in practice, and I think you get that. Again, my point is that assuming we have a 5 year ENT residency, it seems ridiculous for otology to be seperated out.
That being said, I think there are a lot of controversial things that IMO are interesting to discuss.
The reason I picked on neurootology is because a) otology was brought up as an example by LeFort, and b) the stapedectomy example is frustrating for me. There are so many articles with titles like "Who should be doing stapedectomy?," and it is carries the highest litigation risk of otologic procedures. It is suprising how willing a few subspecialists are to testify against ENT doctors. There is the whole thyroidectomy EMG controversy, for example. I am not speaking from personal experience, and hope I never will be. In summary, I agree with your arguments about needing some volume to maintain skills, but the procedure is summarized by 1) remove stapes suprastructure, 2) make stapedotomy, 3) place prosthesis in stapedotomy. As I came through training, hearing people talk about it and reading about it, it was made out to be some sort of mystery, and I found out the opposite. It requires a level of microsurgical skill to do the above-said manuevers, and to be able to regognize the uncommon pitfalls of the procedure such as dehiscent facial nerve, stapedial artery, PL gusher, etc. The problem is, that my case that gets hearing loss, even if it would have been the only one in 200 cases, will be construed as a "misadventure," where as if I referred the case to a neurotologist, the hearing loss will be acceptable. I guess we could blow smoke about this forever, in the end I don't disagree with your arguments, but your "misadventure" comment got me, because that is exactly what I am talking about.
Also, I know the current structure of how cases are referred works fine, and I don't neccessarily think fellowship trained people are "out to get me." The way things are structured does make a fellowship more neccessary to perform more specialized procedures if you are in a saturated environement.
As I have posted about in other threads recently, I just went through a job seeking process and what I found was that you have to be content with a lower complexity of cases or subspecializing in a saturated environment. So, I decided to go to a less saturated enviroment to get the scope of practice I want. Am I bitter about that? Slightly. But, I realize that is just part of coming to terms with how things are. I just think most of what you focus on through college -> med school -> residency is totally unrealated to how your scope and setting of your practice will be. I will probably end up wishing I had more fellowship-trained people nearby after I am in practe for 20 years, but hey...
Relating to the article by Kennedy I referrenced, I am not completely sold one way or the other on that, although my gut feeling is that it is pragmatic idea in theory, but bad in practice. I can say I like having the training I have had. If there was a 3 year basic ENT residency, I wouldn't be content with that, and I would not have wanted to go through a seperate match to follow a specific training path. But, it probably does solve some problems with ENT shortages, and who know's if you had an option to finish 3 year and be trained to do ENT clinic evaluations as well as basice ENT procedures, then maybe that would be a popular option? In that case, I believe a short-track ENT would be unqualified to do many of the procedures we get trained to do in a 5 year program. Of course it is up for debate, but I don't think it is too much of a stretch to include FESS, most otology, phononsurgery, head and neck, and plastics, for starters. I can say with certainty it would create an environment where general ENT doctors are doing less, and my stapedectomy concern would extend to many other procedures. It is a matter of opinion, but that seems like a very bland job to me, because even if you don't do those cases very frequently, they can be the most rewarding. I don't think it would be fair to make junior residents make decisions that have a huge impact on what their life will be in the future.
General surgery and plastics do this sort of thing (or at least they did when I was in training).
Obviously, neurootologists like plastic surgeons come from a standpoint of not using 90% of what they learned in ENT residency, but we are talking about a small number of spots a year and having to decide on doing a fellowship very early in residency? I think most fellowship trained people remain active in general ENT practice to a significant extent. Overall, I don' t think it is really that similar to the example of combined plastics programs. So it made me consider if there are conflicts of interest related to this idea. I am not saying the conflicts are from David Kennedy himself, but for this idea to be implemented, the conflicts of interest would be there in the political climate. I acknowledge the underlying drive is to find a solution to benefit the public from the ENT shortage standpoint. But, this specific plan sure doesn't seem to benefit residents in training, or future general ENT doctors. It also would create a maze of referrals for PCPs to navigate as DoctwoB mentioned, above. Furthermore, there would be localized shortages where you would have a town with no otologist, but 5 rhinologists and your general ENT wouldn't be capable of doing mastoids? This plan does seem to have a side effect of helping strengthen a fellowship/subspecialist model, that's all I am saying... which, I think in and of itself is uneccessary... I don't think I am providing any misinformation here...