PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1199611)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Global health opportunities within pediatric subspecialty fellowship training programs: surveying the virtual landscape 
BMC Medical Education  2013;13:88.
Background
There is growing interest in global health among medical trainees. Medical schools and residencies are responding to this trend by offering global health opportunities within their programs. Among United States (US) graduating pediatric residents, 40% choose to subspecialize after residency training. There is limited data, however, regarding global health opportunities within traditional post-residency, subspecialty fellowship training programs. The objectives of this study were to explore the availability and type of global health opportunities within Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited pediatric subspecialty fellowship training programs, as noted by their online report, and to document change in these opportunities over time.
Methods
The authors performed a systematic online review of ACGME-accredited fellowship training programs within a convenience sample of six US pediatric subspecialties. Utilizing two data sources, the American Medical Association-Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (AMA-FREIDA) and individual program websites, all programs were coded for global health opportunities and opportunity types were stratified into predefined categories. Comparisons were made between 2008 and 2011 using Fisher exact test. All analyses were conducted using SAS Software v. 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
Results
Of the 355 and 360 programs reviewed in 2008 and 2011 respectively, there was an increase in total number of programs listing global health opportunities on AMA-FREIDA (16% to 23%, p=0.02) and on individual program websites (8% to 16%, p=0.004). Nearly all subspecialties had an increased percentage of programs offering global health opportunities on both data sources; although only critical care experienced a significant increase (p=0.04, AMA-FREIDA). The types of opportunities differed across all subspecialties.
Conclusions
Global health opportunities among ACGME-accredited pediatric subspecialty fellowship programs are limited, but increasing as noted by their online report. The availability and types of these opportunities differ by pediatric subspecialty.
doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-88
PMCID: PMC3691626  PMID: 23787005
Global health; Pediatrics; Graduate medical education; Subspecialty; Fellowship training
2.  Implementing the 2009 Institute of Medicine recommendations on resident physician work hours, supervision, and safety 
Long working hours and sleep deprivation have been a facet of physician training in the US since the advent of the modern residency system. However, the scientific evidence linking fatigue with deficits in human performance, accidents and errors in industries from aeronautics to medicine, nuclear power, and transportation has mounted over the last 40 years. This evidence has also spawned regulations to help ensure public safety across safety-sensitive industries, with the notable exception of medicine.
In late 2007, at the behest of the US Congress, the Institute of Medicine embarked on a year-long examination of the scientific evidence linking resident physician sleep deprivation with clinical performance deficits and medical errors. The Institute of Medicine’s report, entitled “Resident duty hours: Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety”, published in January 2009, recommended new limits on resident physician work hours and workload, increased supervision, a heightened focus on resident physician safety, training in structured handovers and quality improvement, more rigorous external oversight of work hours and other aspects of residency training, and the identification of expanded funding sources necessary to implement the recommended reforms successfully and protect the public and resident physicians themselves from preventable harm.
Given that resident physicians comprise almost a quarter of all physicians who work in hospitals, and that taxpayers, through Medicare and Medicaid, fund graduate medical education, the public has a deep investment in physician training. Patients expect to receive safe, high-quality care in the nation’s teaching hospitals. Because it is their safety that is at issue, their voices should be central in policy decisions affecting patient safety. It is likewise important to integrate the perspectives of resident physicians, policy makers, and other constituencies in designing new policies. However, since its release, discussion of the Institute of Medicine report has been largely confined to the medical education community, led by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).
To begin gathering these perspectives and developing a plan to implement safer work hours for resident physicians, a conference entitled “Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety: What will it take to implement the Institute of Medicine recommendations?” was held at Harvard Medical School on June 17–18, 2010. This White Paper is a product of a diverse group of 26 representative stakeholders bringing relevant new information and innovative practices to bear on a critical patient safety problem. Given that our conference included experts from across disciplines with diverse perspectives and interests, not every recommendation was endorsed by each invited conference participant. However, every recommendation made here was endorsed by the majority of the group, and many were endorsed unanimously. Conference members participated in the process, reviewed the final product, and provided input before publication. Participants provided their individual perspectives, which do not necessarily represent the formal views of any organization.
In September 2010 the ACGME issued new rules to go into effect on July 1, 2011. Unfortunately, they stop considerably short of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations and those endorsed by this conference. In particular, the ACGME only applied the limitation of 16 hours to first-year resident physicans. Thus, it is clear that policymakers, hospital administrators, and residency program directors who wish to implement safer health care systems must go far beyond what the ACGME will require. We hope this White Paper will serve as a guide and provide encouragement for that effort.
Resident physician workload and supervision
By the end of training, a resident physician should be able to practice independently. Yet much of resident physicians’ time is dominated by tasks with little educational value. The caseload can be so great that inadequate reflective time is left for learning based on clinical experiences. In addition, supervision is often vaguely defined and discontinuous. Medical malpractice data indicate that resident physicians are frequently named in lawsuits, most often for lack of supervision. The recommendations are: The ACGME should adjust resident physicians workload requirements to optimize educational value. Resident physicians as well as faculty should be involved in work redesign that eliminates nonessential and noneducational activity from resident physician dutiesMechanisms should be developed for identifying in real time when a resident physician’s workload is excessive, and processes developed to activate additional providersTeamwork should be actively encouraged in delivery of patient care. Historically, much of medical training has focused on individual knowledge, skills, and responsibility. As health care delivery has become more complex, it will be essential to train resident and attending physicians in effective teamwork that emphasizes collective responsibility for patient care and recognizes the signs, both individual and systemic, of a schedule and working conditions that are too demanding to be safeHospitals should embrace the opportunities that resident physician training redesign offers. Hospitals should recognize and act on the potential benefits of work redesign, eg, increased efficiency, reduced costs, improved quality of care, and resident physician and attending job satisfactionAttending physicians should supervise all hospital admissions. Resident physicians should directly discuss all admissions with attending physicians. Attending physicians should be both cognizant of and have input into the care patients are to receive upon admission to the hospitalInhouse supervision should be required for all critical care services, including emergency rooms, intensive care units, and trauma services. Resident physicians should not be left unsupervised to care for critically ill patients. In settings in which the acuity is high, physicians who have completed residency should provide direct supervision for resident physicians. Supervising physicians should always be physically in the hospital for supervision of resident physicians who care for critically ill patientsThe ACGME should explicitly define “good” supervision by specialty and by year of training. Explicit requirements for intensity and level of training for supervision of specific clinical scenarios should be providedCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should use graduate medical education funding to provide incentives to programs with proven, effective levels of supervision. Although this action would require federal legislation, reimbursement rules would help to ensure that hospitals pay attention to the importance of good supervision and require it from their training programs
Resident physician work hours
Although the IOM “Sleep, supervision and safety” report provides a comprehensive review and discussion of all aspects of graduate medical education training, the report’s focal point is its recommendations regarding the hours that resident physicians are currently required to work. A considerable body of scientific evidence, much of it cited by the Institute of Medicine report, describes deteriorating performance in fatigued humans, as well as specific studies on resident physician fatigue and preventable medical errors.
The question before this conference was what work redesign and cultural changes are needed to reform work hours as recommended by the Institute of Medicine’s evidence-based report? Extensive scientific data demonstrate that shifts exceeding 12–16 hours without sleep are unsafe. Several principles should be followed in efforts to reduce consecutive hours below this level and achieve safer work schedules. The recommendations are: Limit resident physician work hours to 12–16 hour maximum shiftsA minimum of 10 hours off duty should be scheduled between shiftsResident physician input into work redesign should be actively solicitedSchedules should be designed that adhere to principles of sleep and circadian science; this includes careful consideration of the effects of multiple consecutive night shifts, and provision of adequate time off after night work, as specified in the IOM reportResident physicians should not be scheduled up to the maximum permissible limits; emergencies frequently occur that require resident physicians to stay longer than their scheduled shifts, and this should be anticipated in scheduling resident physicians’ work shiftsHospitals should anticipate the need for iterative improvement as new schedules are initiated; be prepared to learn from the initial phase-in, and change the plan as neededAs resident physician work hours are redesigned, attending physicians should also be considered; a potential consequence of resident physician work hour reduction and increased supervisory requirements may be an increase in work for attending physicians; this should be carefully monitored, and adjustments to attending physician work schedules made as needed to prevent unsafe work hours or working conditions for this group“Home call” should be brought under the overall limits of working hours; work load and hours should be monitored in each residency program to ensure that resident physicians and fellows on home call are getting sufficient sleepMedicare funding for graduate medical education in each hospital should be linked with adherence to the Institute of Medicine limits on resident physician work hours
Moonlighting by resident physicians
The Institute of Medicine report recommended including external as well as internal moonlighting in working hour limits. The recommendation is: All moonlighting work hours should be included in the ACGME working hour limits and actively monitored. Hospitals should formalize a moonlighting policy and establish systems for actively monitoring resident physician moonlighting
Safety of resident physicians
The “Sleep, supervision and safety” report also addresses fatigue-related harm done to resident physicians themselves. The report focuses on two main sources of physical injury to resident physicians impaired by fatigue, ie, needle-stick exposure to blood-borne pathogens and motor vehicle crashes. Providing safe transportation home for resident physicians is a logistical and financial challenge for hospitals. Educating physicians at all levels on the dangers of fatigue is clearly required to change driving behavior so that safe hospital-funded transport home is used effectively. Fatigue-related injury prevention (including not driving while drowsy) should be taught in medical school and during residency, and reinforced with attending physicians; hospitals and residency programs must be informed that resident physicians’ ability to judge their own level of impairment is impaired when they are sleep deprived; hence, leaving decisions about the capacity to drive to impaired resident physicians is not recommendedHospitals should provide transportation to all resident physicians who report feeling too tired to drive safely; in addition, although consecutive work should not exceed 16 hours, hospitals should provide transportation for all resident physicians who, because of unforeseen reasons or emergencies, work for longer than consecutive 24 hours; transportation under these circumstances should be automatically provided to house staff, and should not rely on self-identification or request
Training in effective handovers and quality improvement
Handover practice for resident physicians, attendings, and other health care providers has long been identified as a weak link in patient safety throughout health care settings. Policies to improve handovers of care must be tailored to fit the appropriate clinical scenario, recognizing that information overload can also be a problem. At the heart of improving handovers is the organizational effort to improve quality, an effort in which resident physicians have typically been insufficiently engaged. The recommendations are: Hospitals should train attending and resident physicians in effective handovers of careHospitals should create uniform processes for handovers that are tailored to meet each clinical setting; all handovers should be done verbally and face-to-face, but should also utilize written toolsWhen possible, hospitals should integrate hand-over tools into their electronic medical records (EMR) systems; these systems should be standardized to the extent possible across residency programs in a hospital, but may be tailored to the needs of specific programs and services; federal government should help subsidize adoption of electronic medical records by hospitals to improve signoutWhen feasible, handovers should be a team effort including nurses, patients, and familiesHospitals should include residents in their quality improvement and patient safety efforts; the ACGME should specify in their core competency requirements that resident physicians work on quality improvement projects; likewise, the Joint Commission should require that resident physicians be included in quality improvement and patient safety programs at teaching hospitals; hospital administrators and residency program directors should create opportunities for resident physicians to become involved in ongoing quality improvement projects and root cause analysis teams; feedback on successful quality improvement interventions should be shared with resident physicians and broadly disseminatedQuality improvement/patient safety concepts should be integral to the medical school curriculum; medical school deans should elevate the topics of patient safety, quality improvement, and teamwork; these concepts should be integrated throughout the medical school curriculum and reinforced throughout residency; mastery of these concepts by medical students should be tested on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) stepsFederal government should support involvement of resident physicians in quality improvement efforts; initiatives to improve quality by including resident physicians in quality improvement projects should be financially supported by the Department of Health and Human Services
Monitoring and oversight of the ACGME
While the ACGME is a key stakeholder in residency training, external voices are essential to ensure that public interests are heard in the development and monitoring of standards. Consequently, the Institute of Medicine report recommended external oversight and monitoring through the Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The recommendations are: Make comprehensive fatigue management a Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal; fatigue is a safety concern not only for resident physicians, but also for nurses, attending physicians, and other health care workers; the Joint Commission should seek to ensure that all health care workers, not just resident physicians, are working as safely as possibleFederal government, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, should encourage development of comprehensive fatigue management programs which all health systems would eventually be required to implementMake ACGME compliance with working hours a “ condition of participation” for reimbursement of direct and indirect graduate medical education costs; financial incentives will greatly increase the adoption of and compliance with ACGME standards
Future financial support for implementation
The Institute of Medicine’s report estimates that $1.7 billion (in 2008 dollars) would be needed to implement its recommendations. Twenty-five percent of that amount ($376 million) will be required just to bring hospitals into compliance with the existing 2003 ACGME rules. Downstream savings to the health care system could potentially result from safer care, but these benefits typically do not accrue to hospitals and residency programs, who have been asked historically to bear the burden of residency reform costs. The recommendations are: The Institute of Medicine should convene a panel of stakeholders, including private and public funders of health care and graduate medical education, to lay down the concrete steps necessary to identify and allocate the resources needed to implement the recommendations contained in the IOM “Resident duty hours: Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety” report. Conference participants suggested several approaches to engage public and private support for this initiativeEfforts to find additional funding to implement the Institute of Medicine recommendations should focus more broadly on patient safety and health care delivery reform; policy efforts focused narrowly upon resident physician work hours are less likely to succeed than broad patient safety initiatives that include residency redesign as a key componentHospitals should view the Institute of Medicine recommendations as an opportunity to begin resident physician work redesign projects as the core of a business model that embraces safety and ultimately saves resourcesBoth the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should take the Institute of Medicine recommendations into consideration when promulgating rules for innovation grantsThe National Health Care Workforce Commission should consider the Institute of Medicine recommendations when analyzing the nation’s physician workforce needs
Recommendations for future research
Conference participants concurred that convening the stakeholders and agreeing on a research agenda was key. Some observed that some sectors within the medical education community have been reluctant to act on the data. Several logical funders for future research were identified. But above all agencies, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the only stakeholder that funds graduate medical education upstream and will reap savings downstream if preventable medical errors are reduced as a result of reform of resident physician work hours.
doi:10.2147/NSS.S19649
PMCID: PMC3630963  PMID: 23616719
resident; hospital; working hours; safety
3.  Building Faculty Community: Fellowship in Graduate Medical Education Administration 
Introduction
The Department of Graduate Medical Education at Stanford Hospital and Clinics has developed a professional training program for program directors. This paper outlines the goals, structure, and expected outcomes for the one-year Fellowship in Graduate Medical Education Administration program.
Background
The skills necessary for leading a successful Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) training program require an increased level of curricular and administrative expertise. To meet the ACGME Outcome Project goals, program directors must demonstrate not only sophisticated understanding of curricular design but also competency-based performance assessment, resource management, and employment law. Few faculty-development efforts adequately address the complexities of educational administration. As part of an institutional-needs assessment, 41% of Stanford program directors indicated that they wanted more training from the Department of Graduate Medical Education.
Intervention
To address this need, the Fellowship in Graduate Medical Education Administration program will provide a curriculum that includes (1) readings and discussions in 9 topic areas, (2) regular mentoring by the director of Graduate Medical Education (GME), (3) completion of a service project that helps improve GME across the institution, and (4) completion of an individual scholarly project that focuses on education.
Results
The first fellow was accepted during the 2008–2009 academic year. Outcomes for the project include presentation of a project at a national meeting, internal workshops geared towards disseminating learning to peer program directors, and the completion of a GME service project. The paper also discusses lessons learned for improving the program.
doi:10.4300/01.01.0024
PMCID: PMC2931184  PMID: 21975722
4.  Tracking Residents Through Multiple Residency Programs: A Different Approach for Measuring Residents' Rates of Continuing Graduate Medical Education in ACGME-Accredited Programs 
Background
Increased focus on the number and type of physicians delivering health care in the United States necessitates a better understanding of changes in graduate medical education (GME). Data collected by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) allow longitudinal tracking of residents, revealing the number and type of residents who continue GME following completion of an initial residency. We examined trends in the percent of graduates pursuing additional clinical education following graduation from ACGME-accredited pipeline specialty programs (specialties leading to initial board certification).
Methods
Using data collected annually by the ACGME, we tracked residents graduating from ACGME-accredited pipeline specialty programs between academic year (AY) 2002–2003 and AY 2006–2007 and those pursuing additional ACGME-accredited training within 2 years. We examined changes in the number of graduates and the percent of graduates continuing GME by specialty, by type of medical school, and overall.
Results
The number of pipeline specialty graduates increased by 1171 (5.3%) between AY 2002–2003 and AY 2006–2007. During the same period, the number of graduates pursuing additional GME increased by 1059 (16.7%). The overall rate of continuing GME increased each year, from 28.5% (6331/22229) in AY 2002–2003 to 31.6% (7390/23400) in AY 2006–2007. Rates differed by specialty and for US medical school graduates (26.4% [3896/14752] in AY 2002–2003 to 31.6% [4718/14941] in AY 2006–2007) versus international medical graduates (35.2% [2118/6023] to 33.8% [2246/6647]).
Conclusion
The number of graduates and the rate of continuing GME increased from AY 2002–2003 to AY 2006–2007. Our findings show a recent increase in the rate of continued training for US medical school graduates compared to international medical graduates. Our results differ from previously reported rates of subspecialization in the literature. Tracking individual residents through residency and fellowship programs provides a better understanding of residents' pathways to practice.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00105.1
PMCID: PMC3010950  PMID: 22132288
5.  A Faculty and Resident Development Program to Improve Learning and Teaching Skills 
Objective
To assess the value of a faculty and resident medical education development program.
Study Design
Modules on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies and evaluation, teaching methods, and Residency Review Committee guidelines were created, beta tested, and installed on a website. Pretests and posttests were developed. Faculty and residents were required to complete the course. At initiation and 6 months after training, residents completed a feedback perception survey. Statistical analysis was performed using Student t test. P < .05 was considered significant.
Results
Forty-nine voluntary faculty members and residents completed the course. The posttest scores on all the ACGME competencies were significantly higher than the pretest scores (P < .05). The results of the residents' survey indicated that the educational development program significantly improved their perceptions of corrective and immediate feedback by faculty.
Conclusion
A formal Internet-based program significantly increases short-term cognitive knowledge about the ACGME competencies among participants and improves trainees' perceptions of the quality of faculty feedback up to 6 months after training.
doi:10.4300/01.01.0021
PMCID: PMC2931193  PMID: 21975719
6.  Current pediatric rheumatology fellowship training in the United States: what fellows actually do 
Background
Pediatric Rheumatology (PR) training in the US has existed since the 1970’s. In the early 1990’s, the training was formalized into a three year training program by the American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Pediatrics (ABP). Programs have been evaluated every 5 years by the ACGME to remain credentialed and graduates had to pass a written exam to be certified. There has been no report yet that details not just what training fellows should receive in the 32 US PR training programs but what training the trainees are actually receiving.
Methods
After a literature search, a survey was constructed by the authors, then reviewed and revised with the help members of the Executive Committee of the Rheumatology Section of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) using the Delphi technique. IRB approval was obtained from the AAP and Nationwide Children’s Hospital. The list of fellows was obtained from the ABP and the survey sent out to 81 current fellows or fellows just having finished. One repeat e-mail was sent out.
Results
Forty-seven fellows returned the survey by e-mail (58%) with the majority being 3rd year fellows or fellows who had completed their training. The demographics were as expected with females > males and Caucasians> > non-Caucasians. Training appeared quite appropriate in the number of ½ day continuity clinics per week (1–2, 71%), number of patients per clinic (4–5, 60%), inpatient exposure (2–4 inpatients per week, 40%; 5 or greater, 33%), and weekday/weekend call. Fellows attended more didactic activities than required, had ample time for research (54% 21-60/hours per week), and had multiple teaching opportunities. Seventy-seven percent of the trainees presented abstracts at national meetings, 41% had publication. Disease exposure was excellent and joint injection experience sufficient.
Conclusions
Most US PR training programs as a whole provide an appropriate training by current ACGME, American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and ABP standards in: 1) number of continuity clinics; 2) sufficient on-call activities for weekday nights and weekends; 3) joint interdisciplinary conferences; 4) electives 5) didactic activities; 6) scholarly activities; and 7) exposure to diverse rheumatology diseases. Areas of concern were uniformity & standardization of training, need for a customized PR training curriculum, more mentorship, free electives, training in musculoskeletal ultrasound, need for a hands-on OSCE certification exam and more exposure to ACGME competencies.
doi:10.1186/1546-0096-12-8
PMCID: PMC3922187  PMID: 24507769
7.  Barriers to Implementing the ACGME Outcome Project: A Systematic Review of Program Director Surveys 
Introduction
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced the Outcome Project in July 2001 to improve the quality of resident education through competency-based learning. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine and explore the perceptions of program directors regarding challenges to implementing the ACGME Outcome Project.
Methods
We used the PubMed and Web of Science databases and bibliographies for English-language articles published between January 1, 2001, and February 17, 2012. Studies were included if they described program directors' opinions on (1) barriers encountered when attempting to implement ACGME competency-based education, and (2) assessment methods that each residency program was using to implement competency-based education. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were screened by 2 researchers. The grading criterion was created by the authors and used to assess the quality of each study.
Results
The survey-based data reported the opinions of 1076 program directors. Barriers that were encountered include: (1) lack of time; (2) lack of faculty support; (3) resistance of residents to the Outcome Project; (4) insufficient funding; (5) perceived low priority for the Outcome Project; (6) inadequate salary incentive; and (7) inadequate knowledge of the competencies. Of the 6 competencies, those pertaining to patient care and medical knowledge received the most responses from program directors and were given highest priority.
Conclusions
The reviewed literature revealed that time and financial constraints were the most important barriers encountered when implementing the ACGME Outcome Project.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00222.1
PMCID: PMC3546570  PMID: 24294417
8.  Clinical instructors' perception of a faculty development programme promoting postgraduate year-1 (PGY1) residents' ACGME six core competencies: a 2-year study 
BMJ Open  2011;1(2):e000200.
Objective
The six core competencies designated by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) are essential for establishing a patient centre holistic medical system. The authors developed a faculty programme to promote the postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) resident, ACGME six core competencies. The study aims to assess the clinical instructors' perception, attitudes and subjective impression towards the various sessions of the ‘faculty development programme for teaching ACGME competencies.’
Methods
During 2009 and 2010, 134 clinical instructors participated in the programme to establish their ability to teach and assess PGY1 residents about ACGME competencies.
Results
The participants in the faculty development programme reported that the skills most often used while teaching were learnt during circuit and itinerant bedside, physical examination teaching, mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) evaluation demonstration, training workshop and videotapes of ‘how to teach ACGME competencies.’ Participants reported that circuit bedside teaching and mini-CEX evaluation demonstrations helped them in the interpersonal and communication skills domain, and that the itinerant teaching demonstrations helped them in the professionalism domain, while physical examination teaching and mini-CEX evaluation demonstrations helped them in the patients' care domain. Both the training workshop and videotape session increase familiarity with teaching and assessing skills. Participants who applied the skills learnt from the faculty development programme the most in their teaching and assessment came from internal medicine departments, were young attending physician and had experience as PGY1 clinical instructors.
Conclusions
According to the clinical instructors' response, our faculty development programme effectively increased their familiarity with various teaching and assessment skills needed to teach PGY1 residents and ACGME competencies, and these clinical instructors also then subsequently apply these skills.
Article summary
Article focus
In order to train PGY1 residents, we need to help clinical instructors to become familiar with the teaching and assessment skills that form the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education six core-competencies.
Our study used a self-reported questionnaires based analysis to evaluate the clinical instructors' perception to our faculty development programme.
Key messages
Participants reported that their most commonly used skills were learnt from itinerant and circuit bedside teaching, and mini-clinical evaluation exercise evaluation demonstration in our programme.
Participants also reported that the 40 h basic training course improved their abilities to train and assess PGY1 residents in patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, and medical knowledge domains whereas postcourse training workshop and videotape session enhanced their ability in system-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, and professionalism domains.
A serial follow-up questionnaire suggested that the degree of participant application of skills learnt from our programme increased progressively after finishing the 40 h basic training course, the postcourse training workshop and videotape session.
Strengths and limitations of this study
According to the clinical instructors' responses, our programme effectively increased their familiarity with teaching and assessment skills needed when teaching PGY1 residents' Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies and that these skills were subsequently applies.
This study was limited by the fact that questionnaire used to track and assess the effectiveness of the training programme may have had information and recall bias. In addition, this study had a relatively small sample size and did not contain a control group. However, no controlled educational trials on this subject have been published as yet.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000200
PMCID: PMC3225591  PMID: 22116089
9.  Instituting systems-based practice and practice-based learning and improvement: a curriculum of inquiry 
Medical Education Online  2013;18:10.3402/meo.v18i0.21612.
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires that training programs integrate system-based practice (SBP) and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) into internal medicine residency curricula.
Context and setting
We instituted a seminar series and year-long-mentored curriculum designed to engage internal medicine residents in these competencies.
Methods
Residents participate in a seminar series that includes assigned reading and structured discussion with faculty who assist in the development of quality improvement or research projects. Residents pursue projects over the remainder of the year. Monthly works in progress meetings, protected time for inquiry, and continued faculty mentorship guide the residents in their project development. Trainees present their work at hospital-wide grand rounds at the end of the academic year. We performed a survey of residents to assess their self-reported knowledge, attitudes and skills in SBP and PBLI. In addition, blinded faculty scored projects for appropriateness, impact, and feasibility.
Outcomes
We measured resident self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and skills at the end of the academic year. We found evidence that participants improved their understanding of the context in which they were practicing, and that their ability to engage in quality improvement projects increased. Blinded faculty reviewers favorably ranked the projects’ feasibility, impact, and appropriateness. The ‘Curriculum of Inquiry’ generated 11 quality improvement and research projects during the study period. Barriers to the ongoing work include a limited supply of mentors and delays due to Institutional Review Board approval. Hospital leadership recognizes the importance of the curriculum, and our accreditation manager now cites our ongoing work.
Conclusions
A structured residency-based curriculum facilitates resident demonstration of SBP and practice-based learning and improvement. Residents gain knowledge and skills though this enterprise and hospitals gain access to trainees who help to solve ongoing problems and meet accreditation requirements.
doi:10.3402/meo.v18i0.21612
PMCID: PMC3776321  PMID: 24044686
graduate medical education; competencies; longitudinal curriculum
10.  Use of an Institutional Template for Annual Program Evaluation and Improvement: Benefits for Program Participation and Performance 
Purpose
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) expects programs to engage in ongoing, meaningful improvement, facilitated in part through an annual process of program assessment and improvement. The Duke University Hospital Office of Graduate Medical Education (OGME) used an institutional practice-based learning and improvement strategy to improve the annual evaluation and improvement of its programs.
Methods
The OGME implemented several strategies including the development and dissemination of a template for the report, program director and coordinator development, a reminder and tracking system, incorporation of the document into internal reviews, and use of incentives to promote program adherence.
Results
In the first year of implementation (summer 2005), 27 programs (37%) submitted documentation of their annual program evaluation and improvement to the OGME; this increased to 100% of programs by 2009. A growing number of programs elected to use the template in lieu of written minutes. The number of citations related to required program review and improvement decreased from 12 in a single academic year to 3 over the last 5 years.
Conclusion
Duke University Hospital's institutional initiative to incorporate practice-based learning and improvement resulted in increased documentation, greater use of a standardized template, fewer ACGME-related citations, and enhanced consistency in preparing for ACGME site visits.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00002.1
PMCID: PMC2930309  PMID: 21975613
11.  Prevalence and Cost of Full-Time Research Fellowships During General Surgery Residency – A National Survey 
Annals of surgery  2009;249(1):155-161.
Structured Abstract
Objective
To quantify the prevalence, outcomes, and cost of surgical resident research.
Summary Background Data
General surgery is unique among graduate medical education programs because a large percentage of residents interrupt their clinical training to spend 1-3 years performing full-time research. No comprehensive data exists on the scope of this practice.
Methods
Survey sent to all 239 program directors of general surgery residencies participating in the National Resident Matching Program.
Results
Response rate was 200/239 (84%). A total of 381 out of 1052 trainees (36%) interrupt residency to pursue full-time research. The mean research fellowship length is 1.7 years, with 72% of trainees performing basic science research. A significant association was found between fellowship length and post-residency activity, with a 14.7% increase in clinical fellowship training and a 15.2% decrease in private practice positions for each year of full-time research (p<0.0001). Program directors at 31% of programs reported increased clinical duties for research fellows as a result of ACGME work hour regulations for clinical residents, while a further 10% of programs are currently considering such changes. It costs $41.5 million to pay the 634 trainees who perform research fellowships each year, the majority of which is paid for by departmental funds (40%) and institutional training grants (24%).
Conclusions
Interrupting residency to perform a research fellowship is a common and costly practice among general surgery residents. While performing a research fellowship is associated with clinical fellowship training after residency, it is unclear to what extent this practice leads to the development of surgical investigators after post-graduate training.
doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181929216
PMCID: PMC2678555  PMID: 19106692
12.  Charting the Road to Competence: Developmental Milestones for Internal Medicine Residency Training 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project requires that residency program directors objectively document that their residents achieve competence in 6 general dimensions of practice.
Intervention
In November 2007, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and the ACGME initiated the development of milestones for internal medicine residency training. ABIM and ACGME convened a 33-member milestones task force made up of program directors, experts in evaluation and quality, and representatives of internal medicine stakeholder organizations. This article reports on the development process and the resulting list of proposed milestones for each ACGME competency.
Outcomes
The task force adopted the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition as a framework the internal medicine milestones, and calibrated the milestones with the expectation that residents achieve, at a minimum, the “competency” level in the 5-step progression by the completion of residency. The task force also developed general recommendations for strategies to evaluate the milestones.
Discussion
The milestones resulting from this effort will promote competency-based resident education in internal medicine, and will allow program directors to track the progress of residents and inform decisions regarding promotion and readiness for independent practice. In addition, the milestones may guide curriculum development, suggest specific assessment strategies, provide benchmarks for resident self-directed assessment-seeking, and assist remediation by facilitating identification of specific deficits. Finally, by making explicit the profession's expectations for graduates and providing a degree of national standardization in evaluation, the milestones may improve public accountability for residency training.
doi:10.4300/01.01.0003
PMCID: PMC2931179  PMID: 21975701
13.  Financial Implications of Different Interpretations of ACGME Anesthesiology Program Requirements for Rotations in the Operating Room 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) standards for resident education in anesthesiology mandate required rotations including rotations inside the operating room (OR). When residents complete rotations outside the OR, other providers must be used to maintain the OR's clinical productivity.
Objective
We quantified and compared the costs of replacing residents by using two different working patterns that are compliant with the ACGME anesthesiology program requirements: (1) the minimum amount of time in the OR, and (2) working the maximum amount of time permitted in the OR.
Methods
We calculated resident replacement costs over a 36-month residency period in both a minimum and maximum OR time model. We used a range of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) pay scales determined by a local market analysis for cost comparisons.
Results
Depending on CRNA pay rates, the cost differentials to replace a resident in the OR between the minimum and maximum OR time models ranged from $236,000 to $581,876, assuming a 50-hour resident work week, and $373,400 to $931,001, assuming an 80-hour resident work week. This cost was per resident over the entire 3 years of their residency.
Conclusions
Varying the amount of time residents work in the OR (as allowed under ACGME program requirements) has significant financial implications over a 36-month anesthesiology residency. The larger the residency, the more significant will be the impact on the department and sponsoring institution.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-13-00075.1
PMCID: PMC3693701  PMID: 24404280
14.  Relationships between high-stakes clinical skills exam scores and program director global competency ratings of first-year pediatric residents 
Medical Education Online  2011;16:10.3402/meo.v16i0.7362.
Background
Responding to mandates from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Osteopathic Association (AOA), residency programs have developed competency-based assessment tools. One such tool is the American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians (ACOP) program directors’ annual report. High-stakes clinical skills licensing examinations, such as the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Level 2-Performance Evaluation (COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE), also assess competency in several clinical domains.
Objective
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between program director competency ratings of first-year osteopathic residents in pediatrics and COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE scores from 2005 to 2009.
Methods
The sample included all 94 pediatric first-year residents who took COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and whose training was reviewed by the ACOP for approval of training between 2005 and 2009. Program director competency ratings and COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE scores (domain and component) were merged and analyzed for relationships.
Results
Biomedical/biomechanical domain scores were positively correlated with overall program director competency ratings. Humanistic domain scores were not significantly correlated with overall program director competency ratings, but did show moderate correlation with ratings for interpersonal and communication skills. The six ACGME or seven AOA competencies assessed empirically by the ACOP program directors’ annual report could not be recovered by principal component analysis; instead, three factors were identified, accounting for 86% of the variance between competency ratings.
Discussion
A few significant correlations were noted between COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE scores and program director competency ratings. Exploring relationships between different clinical skills assessments is inherently difficult because of the heterogeneity of tools used and overlap of constructs within the AOA and ACGME core competencies.
doi:10.3402/meo.v16i0.7362
PMCID: PMC3174084  PMID: 21927550
residency program director ratings; clinical skills testing; high-stakes licensing exam; competency assessment; pediatric residents; external validity; COMLEX-USA
15.  A survey of education and confidence level among graduating anesthesia residents with regard to selected peripheral nerve blocks 
BMC Anesthesiology  2013;13:16.
Background
As peripheral nerve blockade has increased significantly over the past decade, resident education and exposure to peripheral nerve blocks has also increased. This survey assessed the levels of exposure and confidence that graduating residents have with performing selected peripheral nerve blocks.
Methods
All program directors of ACGME-accredited anesthesiology programs in the USA were asked to distribute an online survey to their graduating residents. Information was gathered on the number and types of nerve blocks performed, technique(s) utilized, perceived comfort level in performing nerve blocks, perceived quality of regional anesthesia teaching during residency, and suggested areas for improvement.
Results
One hundred and seven residents completed the survey. The majority completed more than 60 nerve blocks. Femoral and interscalene blocks were performed most frequently, with 59% and 41% of residents performing more than 20 of each procedure, respectively. The least-performed block was the lumber plexus block, with just 9% performing 20 or more blocks. Most residents reported feeling “very” to “somewhat” comfortable performing the surveyed blocks, with the exception of the lumber plexus block, where 64% were “not comfortable.” Overall, 78% of residents were “mostly” to “very satisfied” with the quality of education received during residency.
Conclusions
Most of the respondents fulfilled the ACGME requirement and expressed satisfaction with the peripheral nerve block education received during residency. However, the ACGME requirement for 40 nerve blocks may not be adequate for some residents to feel comfortable in performing a full range of blocks upon graduation. Many residents felt that curriculums incorporating simulator training and didactic lectures would be the most helpful method of improving the quality of their education pertaining to peripheral nerve blocks.
doi:10.1186/1471-2253-13-16
PMCID: PMC3737120  PMID: 23865456
Peripheral nerve block; Ultrasound; Nerve stimulator; Residency
16.  Impact of 2011 Resident Duty Hour Requirements on Neurology Residency Programs and Departments 
The Neurohospitalist  2014;4(3):119-126.
Objective:
In 2011, the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) redefined resident duty hour requirements by reducing in-hospital duty hour requirements for residents in an effort to improve patient care, resident well-being, and resident education. We sought to determine the cost of adoption based on changes made by neurology residency programs and departments due to these requirements.
Methods:
We surveyed department chairs or residency program directors at 123 ACGME-accredited US adult neurology training programs on programmatic changes and resident expansion, hiring practices, and development of new computer-based resources in direct response to the 2011 ACGME duty hour requirements. Using data from publicly available resources, we estimated respondents’ financial cost of adoption.
Results:
In all, 63 responded (51% response rate); 76% were program directors. The most common changes implemented by programs were adding night float systems (n = 31; 49%) and increasing faculty responsibility (n = 26; 41%). In direct response to the requirements, 21 programs applied to ACGME for 40 additional residents, 29 of which were fully covered by institutional funds. In direct response to the requirements, nearly half of the departments (n = 26) hired individuals for a total of 80 hires (or 64 full-time equivalents), most commonly mid-level practitioners. The total estimated cost to responding departments was US $12.7 million or US $201,000 per department annually. When projecting expenses of planned changes for the following year, costs increased to US $360,000 per department, with 5-year costs exceeding US $1 million.
Conclusions:
The most recent restriction on resident duty hours comes at substantial cost to neurology departments and residency programs.
doi:10.1177/1941874413518640
PMCID: PMC4056414  PMID: 24982715
education; training; academic; quality; safety; costs
17.  The State of Evaluation in Internal Medicine Residency 
Journal of General Internal Medicine  2008;23(7):1010-1015.
Background
There are no nationwide data on the methods residency programs are using to assess trainee competence. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has recommended tools that programs can use to evaluate their trainees. It is unknown if programs are adhering to these recommendations.
Objective
To describe evaluation methods used by our nation’s internal medicine residency programs and assess adherence to ACGME methodological recommendations for evaluation.
Design
Nationwide survey.
Participants
All internal medicine programs registered with the Association of Program Directors of Internal Medicine (APDIM).
Measurements
Descriptive statistics of programs and tools used to evaluate competence; compliance with ACGME recommended evaluative methods.
Results
The response rate was 70%. Programs were using an average of 4.2–6.0 tools to evaluate their trainees with heavy reliance on rating forms. Direct observation and practice and data-based tools were used much less frequently. Most programs were using at least 1 of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)’s “most desirable” methods of evaluation for all 6 measures of trainee competence. These programs had higher support staff to resident ratios than programs using less desirable evaluative methods.
Conclusions
Residency programs are using a large number and variety of tools for evaluating the competence of their trainees. Most are complying with ACGME recommended methods of evaluation especially if the support staff to resident ratio is high.
doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0578-0
PMCID: PMC2517950  PMID: 18612734
graduate medical education; residency; ACGME; competency
18.  Use of a Structured Template to Facilitate Practice-Based Learning and Improvement Projects 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to meet and demonstrate outcomes across 6 competencies. Measuring residents' competency in practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) is particularly challenging.
Purpose
We developed an educational tool to meet ACGME requirements for PBLI. The PBLI template helped programs document quality improvement (QI) projects and supported increased scholarly activity surrounding PBLI learning.
Methods
We reviewed program requirements for 43 residency and fellowship programs and identified specific PBLI requirements for QI activities. We also examined ACGME Program Information Form responses on PBLI core competency questions surrounding QI projects for program sites visited in 2008–2009. Data were integrated by a multidisciplinary committee to develop a peer-protected PBLI template guiding programs through process, documentation, and evaluation of QI projects. All steps were reviewed and approved through our GME Committee structure.
Results
An electronic template, companion checklist, and evaluation form were developed using identified project characteristics to guide programs through the PBLI process and facilitate documentation and evaluation of the process. During a 24 month period, 27 programs have completed PBLI projects, and 15 have reviewed the template with their education committees, but have not initiated projects using the template.
Discussion
The development of the tool generated program leaders' support because the tool enhanced the ability to meet program-specific objectives. The peer-protected status of this document for confidentiality and from discovery has been beneficial for program usage. The document aggregates data on PBLI and QI initiatives, offers opportunities to increase scholarship in QI, and meets the ACGME goal of linking measures to outcomes important to meeting accreditation requirements at the program and institutional level.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00195.1
PMCID: PMC3399615  PMID: 23730444
19.  The Utility of Letters of Recommendation in Predicting Resident Success: Can the ACGME Competencies Help? 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies are used to assess resident performance, and recently similar competencies have become an accepted framework for evaluating medical student achievements as well. However, the utility of incorporating the competencies into the resident application has not yet been assessed.
Purpose
The objective of this study was to examine letters of recommendation (LORs) to identify ACGME competency–based themes that might help distinguish the least successful from the most successful residents.
Methods
Residents entering a university-based residency program from 1994 to 2004 were retrospectively evaluated by faculty and ranked in 4 groups according to perceived level of success. Applications from residents in the highest and lowest groups were abstracted. LORs were qualitatively reviewed and analyzed for 9 themes (6 ACGME core competencies and 3 additional performance measures). The mean number of times each theme was mentioned was calculated for each student. Groups were compared using the χ2 test and the Student t test.
Results
Seventy-five residents were eligible for analysis, and 29 residents were ranked in the highest and lowest groups. Baseline demographics and number of LORs did not differ between the two groups. Successful residents had statistically significantly more comments about excellence in the competency areas of patient care, medical knowledge, and interpersonal and communication skills.
Conclusion
LORs can provide useful clues to differentiate between students who are likely to become the least versus the most successful residency program graduates. Greater usage of the ACGME core competencies within LORs may be beneficial.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00010.1
PMCID: PMC3179231  PMID: 22942969
20.  The research rotation: competency-based structured and novel approach to research training of internal medicine residents 
Background
In the United States, the Accreditation Council of graduate medical education (ACGME) requires all accredited Internal medicine residency training programs to facilitate resident scholarly activities. However, clinical experience and medical education still remain the main focus of graduate medical education in many Internal Medicine (IM) residency-training programs. Left to design the structure, process and outcome evaluation of the ACGME research requirement, residency-training programs are faced with numerous barriers. Many residency programs report having been cited by the ACGME residency review committee in IM for lack of scholarly activity by residents.
Methods
We would like to share our experience at Lincoln Hospital, an affiliate of Weill Medical College Cornell University New York, in designing and implementing a successful structured research curriculum based on ACGME competencies taught during a dedicated "research rotation".
Results
Since the inception of the research rotation in 2004, participation of our residents among scholarly activities has substantially increased. Our residents increasingly believe and appreciate that research is an integral component of residency training and essential for practice of medicine.
Conclusion
Internal medicine residents' outlook in research can be significantly improved using a research curriculum offered through a structured and dedicated research rotation. This is exemplified by the improvement noted in resident satisfaction, their participation in scholarly activities and resident research outcomes since the inception of the research rotation in our internal medicine training program.
doi:10.1186/1472-6920-6-52
PMCID: PMC1630691  PMID: 17044924
21.  Internal Reviews Benefit Programs of the Review Team Members and the Program Under Review 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandates that sponsoring institutions conduct internal reviews. In 1998, the ACGME Institutional Review Committee gave Duke University Hospital a citation for an inadequate internal review (IR) process. Since then, we have instituted several iterative changes. We describe the evolution of Duke University Hospital's current internal review process.
Intervention
We implemented a new review team composition, template report, use of the program information form, and centralization of documentation to improve our internal review process. In 2007, a more formal evaluation of the outcome and impact of these changes was instituted. This included a yearly survey of all participants and review team members, a review of programs, and a tracking process for the decisions of our Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC) on the status of reviewed programs.
Results
Participants from both the program under review and the review team evaluated the process favorably. Review teams reported they learned from the best practices of the program being reviewed. Program directors from the reviewed programs reported the process improved their documentation. Both groups reported the process better prepared them for their next ACGME Review Committee site visit. The GMEC has recommended “probationary sponsorship” for fewer programs since the IR process changes have been implemented. The IR process was recognized as a best practice in Duke University Hospital's 2004 ACGME institutional review.
Conclusion
We believe our IR process, review-team composition, template report, program information form, and centralized documentation now fully meets accreditation standards. Participants are reasonably satisfied and report value from the process. More programs are judged to be within substantial compliance by the GMEC.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00063.1
PMCID: PMC3010948  PMID: 22132286
22.  Sponsorship of Internal Medicine Subspecialty Fellowships Since 2000: Trends and Community Hospital Involvement 
Background:
Since 2002, market studies have predicted a physician shortage with an increasing need for future subspecialists. A Residency Review Committee (RRC) rule that restricted sponsorship of fellowships was eliminated in 2005, but the influence of this change on the number of fellowships is not known. We believed that the rules change might make it possible for community hospitals to offer fellowships. Our objectives were to determine the extent of change in the number of fellowships in university and community hospitals from 2000 through 2008, both before and after the RRC regulation change in 2005, and to determine whether community hospitals contributed substantially to the number of new fellowships available to internal medicine graduates.
Methods:
We used archived Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) data from July 2000 through June 2008. The community hospital category included multispecialty clinics, community programs, and municipal hospitals.
Results:
Of the 94 newly approved internal medicine subspecialty fellowships in this time period, 59 (63%) were community sponsored. As of 6/02/08, all were in good standing. Thirteen programs were started as a department of medicine solo fellowship since 2005. The number of new programs approved between 2005 and 2008 was roughly three times the number approved between 2000 and 2004.
Conclusions:
The number of subspecialty fellowship programs and approved positions has increased dramatically in the last 8 years. Many of the new programs were at community hospitals. The change in RRC rules has been associated with increased availability of fellowship programs in the university and community hospital setting for subspecialty training.
doi:10.3885/meo.2009.Res00307
PMCID: PMC2779615  PMID: 20165522
Specialists; workforce; supply
23.  Relationship Express: A Pilot Program to Teach Anesthesiology Residents Communication Skills 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residency programs to teach 6 core competencies and to provide evidence of effective standardized training through objective measures. George Washington University's Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine implemented a pilot program to address the interpersonal and communication skill competency. In this program, we aimed to pilot the Relationship Express model, a series of exercises in experiential learning to teach anesthesiology residents to build effective relationships with patients in time-limited circumstances. The purpose of this paper is to describe the application of this model for anesthesiology training.
Methods
A total of 7 first-year clinical anesthesiology residents participated in this pilot study, and 4 residents completed the entire program for analysis purposes. Relationship Express was presented in three 1.5-hour sessions: (1) introduction followed by 2-case, standardized patient pretest with feedback to residents from faculty observers; (2) interpersonal and communication skills didactic workshop with video behavior modeling; and (3) review discussion followed by 2-case, standardized patient posttest and evaluation.
Results
Modified Brookfield comments revealed the following themes: (1) time constraints were realistic compared with clinical practice; (2) admitting errors with patients was difficult; (3) patients were more aware of body language than anticipated; (4) residents liked the group discussions and the video interview; (5) standardized patients were convincing; and (6) residents found the feedback from faculty and standardized patients helpful.
Conclusions
Resident retrospective self-assessment and learning comments confirm the potential value of the Relationship Express model. This program will require further assessment and refinement with a larger number of residents.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00012.1
PMCID: PMC3010947  PMID: 22132285
24.  Residency Programs' Evaluations of the Competencies: Data Provided to the ACGME About Types of Assessments Used by Programs 
Background
In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project began to focus on resident performance in the 6 competencies of patient care, medical knowledge, professionalism, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal communication skills, and professionalism. Beginning in 2007, the ACGME began collecting information on how programs assess these competencies. This report provides information on the nature and extent of those assessments.
Methods
Using data collected by the ACGME for site visits, we use descriptive statistics and percentages to describe the number and type of methods and assessors accredited programs (n  =  4417) report using to assess the competencies. Observed differences among specialties, methodologies, and assessors are tested with analysis of variance procedures.
Results
Almost all (>97%) of programs report assessing all of the competencies and using multiple methods and multiple assessors. Similar assessment methods and evaluator types were consistently used across the 6 competencies. However, there were some differences in the use of patient and family as assessors: Primary care and ambulatory specialties used these to a greater extent than other specialties.
Conclusion
Residency programs are emphasizing the competencies in their evaluation of residents. Understanding the scope of evaluation methodologies that programs use in resident assessment is important for both the profession and the public, so that together we may monitor continuing improvement in US graduate medical education.
doi:10.4300/JGME-02-04-30
PMCID: PMC3010956  PMID: 22132294
25.  Satisfiers and Hygiene Factors: Residents' Perceptions of Strengths and Limitations of Their Learning Environment 
Background
Efforts are underway to enhance learner input into the accreditation of educational programs, including residencies and fellowships.
Objectives
To aggregate the perspectives of residents and fellows from a cross-section of specialties to highlight common dimensions in learners' perceptions of strengths and opportunities for improvement (OFIs) in their program and to assess whether the ACGME Resident Survey captures areas important to residents' perceptions of their learning environment.
Results
The data set included 206 core and 193 subspecialty programs representing a wide range of specialties and subspecialties. Comments on strengths and OFIs addressed most of the items in the Resident Survey, with items not addressed in the survey also not represented in the ACGME requirements. The findings suggest that some program attributes are mentioned only in their absence (hygiene factors), whereas other dimensions (satisfiers), particularly quality and quantity of residents' interactions with faculty, procedural volume, and variety and didactic offerings, are critical to learners' perceptions of the quality of their learning environment. For some strengths, residents indicated their programs exceeded the ACGME standards, and for areas identified as OFIs, comments suggested programs were in compliance, but the residents desired more. Mentioned in this context were opportunities to perform research, access to board preparation courses and career counseling, and availability of new technology, including new patient care modalities.
Conclusions
The findings allow insight into program attributes important to residents' perceptions of their learning environment. Programs may find the results helpful in suggesting areas for improvement in their learning environment.
doi:10.4300/JGME-04-01-33
PMCID: PMC3312524  PMID: 23451325

Results 1-25 (1199611)