PICU program directors must decide on the best educational delivery process to implement resident educational guidelines as published by the American Board of Pediatrics and the Society of Critical Care. Our goal was to evaluate both RES and ATTND determinations of the optimal RES (PL-2) rotation in an intensivist directed, non-fellow PICU. METHOD: Using an orthogonal array design, a survey was constructed which included 9 unique 4-factor-3-intensity educational delivery profiles. Factors and intensities included: RES CLINICAL supervision [structured, flexible, independent], RES PROCEDURE supervision [structured, flexible, independent], ATTND TEACHING STYLE [interactive, formal lectures, RES independent study], and EVALUATION OF RES [standardized test, oral interview, RES formal presentation]. Conjoint analysis (using SYSTAT) evaluated the utility score (0-9), importance (%total utility range for each factor) and variability (intergroup utility range differences) of factors and intensities. RESULTS: The educational delivery factor of highest utility and importance for RES (n=34) was CLINICAL(flexible) (6.0, 34%) but for ATTND (n=23) was PROCEDURE (flexible) (5.8, 39%). The educational delivery factor of least utility and importance for RES was PROCEDURE (structured) (4.7, 10%) but for ATTND was EVALUATION OF RES(test) (4.7, 13%). When analyzed by RES year, TEACHING STYLE (44%) and EVALUATION OF RES (24%) importance showed the highest variability. ATTND response did not significantly vary by specialty type nor yrs of experience. CONCLUSION: There is a mismatch between RES and ATTND in terms of preferred allowed flexibility in performing procedures. ATTND are least concerned with the evaluation of the RES performance. RES value most the clinical interactive nature of a PICU rotation. RES PICU rotations should be designed to maximize their utility for both RES and ATTND and require reevaluation if RES composition or ATTND teaching opportunity time decreases.
