It seems fitting to change gears to the topic of education in the classic section of JECT—especially because one of the authors of this 1984 classic paper, Madeline Massengale Beall, rightly earned AmSECT’s honored 2005 Gibbon Award. One of the many amazing things about Madeline is the fact that she was present for and influential in every major professional milestone in perfusion, either educational or political.
The topic of professional education should be on every perfusionist and surgeons’ minds these days. Roush’s article places the genesis of US perfusion education in historical perspective whether you believe in on-the-job, hospital-based, baccalaureate, or masters-prepared perfusionists. Remember when the minimal level of education for a perfusionist was a controversy (1–3)? In 2005, a quiet debate surrounds the methods of earning your masters in perfusion (the terminal degree in our profession) and is there still use for a bachelor’s degree in perfusion (4–6)?
Roush et al. explain that before the 1970s, surgeons were “intimately involved” in the evolution of perfusion equipment and techniques. As we know, the role of perfusionist was passed from MDs and PhDs to RNs and pump techs in the late 1960s. With the passing of the daily pump-work baton came the responsibility to build educational programs both for basic education and continued professional education. Some of the milestones described in the article that Madeline aided AmSECT to develop and spin-off were a certifying body for practicing perfusionists and a review committee for perfusion education programs.
The authors quoted a 1983 Mark Richmond report that a perfusionist performed an average of approximately 147 cases per year in 1981 in the 680 hospitals known to perform open-heart surgery (2). The average annual caseload today is substantially less and takes place in many more hospitals. In 1983 there were eleven accredited perfusion education programs—there are 21 today—down from a much higher level in 1996 (4–6).
Roush, Nathanson, and the Bealls described an educational program that embraced the concept of crosstraining perfusionists with physician assistants so that perfusionists could fulfill additional roles in the hospital. It is interesting that the four-perfusion programs that historically embraced cross-training with physician assistants are no longer active. There are two programs today that “cross-train” with biomedical engineers http://www.msoe.edu/grad/msp/) and pharmacologists (http://www.perfusion.arizona.edu/).
The article summarized by stating: “These remarkable advances in cardiac surgery were accompanied by and, in part, made possible by the contributions of cardiopulmonary perfusionists who assisted surgeons in bringing extracorporeal circulatory equipment and procedures to the present state of custom and use.” There are still numerous opportunities for accomplishment.
REFERENCES
- 1.Richmond M, Arnold B, Kurusz M.. The relationship of duration of training to American board of Cardiovascular Perfusion written certification examination scores. J Extra Corpor Technol. 1980;12:127–30. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Richmond MG.. Perfusion manpower. Proc Am Acad CV Perfusion. 1983;4:192–94. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Toth LS.. From vision, to here, to where? J Extra Corpor Technol. 1989;21:40–51. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Plunkett PF.. Perfusion education in the USA. Perfusion. 1997;12:233–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Stammers AH.. Perfusion education in the United States at the turn of the century. J Extra Corpor Technol. 1999;31:112–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Toomasian JM, Searles B, Kurusz M.. The evolution of perfusion education in America. Perfusion. 2003;18:257–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]