Assessing Residents in a Nuclear Medicine Physician Training Program: The Philippine Experience

  • Thomas N. B. Pascual
  • Jerry M. Obaldo
  • Teofilo O. L. San LuisJr.
  • Marcela J. Leus


Like any similar training programs in nuclear medicine, the objective of nuclear medicine physician training in the Philippines setting is to provide excellent opportunities for qualified physicians to attain the essential competencies in image interpretation, therapy procedures, molecular imaging research, and clinical experience needed to practice clinical nuclear medicine as well to meet the eligibility requirements for the local board certification. Assessment is an integral part of the training program. Formative and summative assessment tools commonly used are richly described in the actual context illustrating theory into practice, as it indirectly reflects the general physician competencies as defined in the ACGME model. With the trend of adapting to an outcome-based curriculum, assessment and evaluation should be tailored to fit this purpose. In the Philippine setting wherein most programs are still exam driven, careful transition should be done to adjust the current curriculum and resources to achieve best practice while not sacrificing student learning. Selected issues and challenges encountered in the path toward best practices are further discussed.


Nuclear Medicine Objective Structure Clinical Examination Oral Examination Summative Assessment Postgraduate Medical Education 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ACGME and ABMS Toolbox of Assessment Methods (2000) A product of the joint initiative of the ACGME outcome project of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Version 1.1, Sept 2000 accessed online 25 July 2011:;
  2. Carraccio C, Wolfsthal SD, Englander R, Ferentz K, Martin C (2002) Shifting paradigms: from Flexner to competencies. Acad Med 77:361–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins J (2003) Evaluation of residents, faculty and program. Acad Radiol 10:S35–S43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Epstein RM (2007) Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med 356:387–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frank JR, Jabbour M, Fréchette D, Marks M, Valk N, Bourgeois G (eds) (2005) Report of the CanMEDS phase IV working groups. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  6. Graham M, Metter D (2007) Evolution of nuclear medicine training: past, present, and future. J Nucl Med 48:257–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gunderman RB, Tarver RD (2004) The roles of the board examination. Acad Radiol 11:238–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Malan SPT (2000) The ‘new paradigm’ of outcomes-based education in perspective. J Fam Ecol Consum Sci 28:22–28Google Scholar
  9. Pascual TN, Santiago JF, Leus M (2007) Reengineering the nuclear medicine residency curriculum in the new era of PET imaging: perspectives on PET education and training in the Philippine context. World J Nucl Med 6:41Google Scholar
  10. Pascual TN, Santiago JFY (2007) Cooperative learning in the era of PET imaging education and training: philippine experience. International conference on clinical PET and molecular nuclear medicine (IPET 2007). Book of extended synopsis, Bangkok. IAEA CN-157/192p, p 320Google Scholar
  11. Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick RK, Szalay D (1998) Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med 73:993–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Silberstein EB (2000) Trends in American nuclear medicine training: past, present, and future. Semin Nucl Med 30:209–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Turnbull J, Gray J, MacFadyen J (1998) Improving in-training evaluation programs. J Gen Intern Med 13:317–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas N. B. Pascual
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jerry M. Obaldo
    • 3
    • 4
  • Teofilo O. L. San LuisJr.
    • 5
    • 2
  • Marcela J. Leus
    • 6
  1. 1.Section of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Human HealthInternational Atomic Energy AgencyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Asian School of Nuclear MedicineManilaPhilippines
  3. 3.Radioisotope Laboratory and Section of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of the Philippines, Philippine General HospitalManilaPhilippines
  4. 4.Division of Nuclear MedicinePhilippine Heart CenterQuezon CityPhilippines
  5. 5.Faculty of Medicine and SurgeryUniversity of Santo TomasManilaPhilippines
  6. 6.Education Cluster, The Graduate SchoolUniversity of Santo TomasManilaPhilippines

Personalised recommendations