The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) has recently replaced the traditional, centralized oral examination with the locally administered Neurology Clinical Skills Examination (NEX). The ABPN postulated the experience with the NEX would be similar to the Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise, a reliable and valid assessment tool. The reliability and validity of the NEX has not been established.
NEX encounters were videotaped at 4 neurology programs. Local faculty and ABPN examiners graded the encounters using 2 different evaluation forms: an ABPN form and one with a contracted rating scale. Some NEX encounters were purposely failed by residents. Cohen’s kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for local vs ABPN examiners.
Ninety-eight videotaped NEX encounters of 32 residents were evaluated by 20 local faculty evaluators and 18 ABPN examiners. The interrater reliability for a determination of pass vs fail for each encounter was poor (kappa 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.11, 0.53). ICC between local faculty and ABPN examiners for each performance rating on the ABPN NEX form was poor to moderate (ICC range 0.14-0.44), and did not improve with the contracted rating form (ICC range 0.09-0.36). ABPN examiners were more likely than local examiners to fail residents.
There is poor interrater reliability between local faculty and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology examiners. A bias was detected for favorable assessment locally, which is concerning for the validity of the examination. Further study is needed to assess whether training can improve interrater reliability and offset bias.
= American Board of Internal Medicine;
= American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology;
= confidence interval;
= Henry Ford Hospital;
= intraclass correlation coefficients;
= internal medicine;
= Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise;
= Neurology Clinical Skills Examination;
= residency inservice training examination;
= University of Cincinnati;
= University of Michigan;
= University of South Florida.
Studies across a range of specialties have consistently yielded positive associations between performance on in-training examinations and board certification examinations, supporting the use of the in-training examination as a valuable formative feedback tool for residents and residency programs. That association to date, however, has not been tested in child and adolescent psychiatry residents.
This is the first study to explore the relationship between performance on the American College of Psychiatrists' Child Psychiatry Resident In-Training Examination (CHILD PRITE) and subsequent performance on the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology's (ABPN) subspecialty multiple-choice examination (Part I) in child and adolescent psychiatry (CAP).
Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship between performance on the CHILD PRITE and the CAP Part I examination for 342 fellows.
Second-year CAP fellows performed significantly better on the CHILD PRITE than did the first-year fellows. The correlation between the CHILD PRITE total score and the CAP Part I examination total score was .41 (P = .01) for first-year CAP fellows; it was .52 (P = .01) for second-year CAP fellows.
The significant correlations between scores on the 2 tests show they assess the same achievement domain. This supports the use of the CHILD PRITE as a valid measure of medical knowledge and formative feedback tool in child and adolescent psychiatry.
In this review I describe the history leading to the creation of the subspecialty of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery and its fellowships, the process involved in the current requirements for subspecialty certification and fellowship applications, and the implications for urological training.
Results and conclusions
The route to subspecialty certification and fellowships for female urology in the USA is a lesson in politics, education, medical rivalries and perseverance, with the goal of improving care for women. This decade-long journey culminated in the recognition of a separate subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties in 2011, accreditation by the American Council for Graduate Medical Education in
2012, and certification to be awarded by the Boards of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology in 2013. It remains to be seen whether this effort will improve resident education and patient care, or represent a marketing tool in the competitive USA healthcare environment. While many of the details and regulatory issues are specific to the USA, elements of the curriculum and procedures should be relevant to other countries.
FPMRS, female pelvic medicine and reproductive surgery; ABOG, American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology; ACGME, American Council for Graduate Medical Education; ABMS, American Board of Medical Specialties; ABU, American Board of Urology; Female urology; Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery; Subspecialty certification; Fellowship training
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.
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).
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.
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.
Global health; Pediatrics; Graduate medical education; Subspecialty; Fellowship training
This study analyzed the relationship between performance on the American Academy of Neurology Residency In-Service Training Examination (RITE) and subsequent performance on the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) Certification Examination.
Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship between performance on the RITE and the Certification Examination for 2 cohorts of adult neurologists and 2 cohorts of child neurologists. The 2 cohorts represented test takers for 2008 and 2009.
For adult neurologists, the correlation between the total RITE and the Certification Examination scores was 0.77 (p < 0.01) in 2008 and 0.65 (p < 0.01) in 2009. For child neurologists, it was 0.74 (p < 0.01) in 2008 and 0.56 (p < 0.01) in 2009.
For 2 consecutive years, there was a significant correlation between performance on the RITE and performance on the ABPN Certification Examination for both adult and child neurologists. The RITE is a self-assessment examination, and performance on the test is a positive predictor of future performance on the ABPN Certification Examination.
Multiple training pathways are recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) for internal medicine (IM) physicians to certify in critical care medicine (CCM) via the American Board of Internal Medicine. While each involves 1 year of clinical fellowship training in CCM, substantive differences in training requirements exist among the various pathways. The Critical Care Societies Collaborative convened a task force to review these CCM pathways and to provide recommendations for unified and coordinated training requirements for IM-based physicians.
A group of CCM professionals certified in pulmonary-CCM and/or IM-CCM from ACGME-accredited training programs who have expertise in education, administration, research, and clinical practice.
Data Sources and Synthesis
Relevant published literature was accessed through a MEDLINE search and references provided by all task force members. Material published by the ACGME, American Board of Internal Medicine, and other specialty organizations was also reviewed. Collaboratively and iteratively, the task force reached consensus using a roundtable meeting, electronic mail, and conference calls.
Internal medicine-CCM–based fellowships have disparate program requirements compared to other internal medicine subspecialties and adult CCM fellowships. Differences between IM-CCM and pulmonary-CCM programs include the ratio of key clinical faculty to fellows and a requirement to perform 50 therapeutic bronchoscopies. Competency-based training was considered uniformly desirable for all CCM training pathways.
The task force concluded that requesting competency-based training and minimizing variations in the requirements for IM-based CCM fellowship programs will facilitate effective CCM training for both programs and trainees.
training; critical care medicine; internal medicine; fellowship education; requirements; workforce
The American Board of Internal Medicine Certification Examination (ABIM-CE) is one of several methods used to assess medical knowledge, an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competency for graduating internal medicine residents. With recent changes in graduate medical education program directors and internal medicine residents are seeking evidence to guide decisions regarding residency elective choices. Prior studies have shown that formalized elective curricula improve subspecialty ABIM-CE scores. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether the number of subspecialty elective exposures or the specific subspecialties which residents complete electives in impact ABIM-CE scores.
ABIM-CE scores, elective exposures and demographic characteristics were collected for MedStar Georgetown University Hospital internal medicine residents who were first-time takers of the ABIM-CE in 2006–2010 (n=152). Elective exposures were defined as a two-week period assigned to the respective subspecialty. ABIM-CE score was analyzed using the difference between the ABIM-CE score and the standardized passing score (delta-SPS). Subspecialty scores were analyzed using percentage of correct responses. Data was analyzed using GraphPad Prism version 5.00 for Windows.
Paired elective exposure and ABIM-CE scores were available in 131 residents. There was no linear correlation between ABIM-CE mean delta-SPS and the total number of electives or the number of unique elective exposures. Residents with ≤14 elective exposures had higher ABIM-CE mean delta-SPS than those with ≥15 elective exposures (143.4 compared to 129.7, p=0.051). Repeated electives in individual subspecialties were not associated with significant difference in mean ABIM-CE delta-SPS.
This study did not demonstrate significant positive associations between individual subspecialty elective exposures and ABIM-CE mean delta-SPS score. Residents with ≤14 elective exposures had higher ABIM-CE mean delta-SPS than those with ≥15 elective exposures suggesting there may be an “ideal” number of elective exposures that supports improved ABIM-CE performance. Repeated elective exposures in an individual specialty did not correlate with overall or subspecialty ABIM-CE performance.
Resident education; Gender; Elective; Subspecialty; Graduate medical education
Pathology Informatics is a new field; a field that is still defining itself even as it begins the formalization, accreditation, and board certification process. At the same time, Pathology itself is changing in a variety of ways that impact informatics, including subspecialization and an increased use of data analysis. In this paper, we examine how these changes impact both the structure of Pathology Informatics fellowship programs and the fellows’ goals within those programs.
Materials and Methods:
As part of our regular program review process, the fellows evaluated the value and effectiveness of our existing fellowship tracks (Research Informatics, Clinical Two-year Focused Informatics, Clinical One-year Focused Informatics, and Clinical 1 + 1 Subspecialty Pathology and Informatics). They compared their education, informatics background, and anticipated career paths and analyzed them for correlations between those parameters and the fellowship track chosen. All current and past fellows of the program were actively involved with the project.
Fellows’ anticipated career paths correlated very well with the specific tracks in the program. A small set of fellows (Clinical – one or two year – Focused Informatics tracks) anticipated clinical careers primarily focused in informatics (Director of Informatics). The majority of the fellows, however, anticipated a career practicing in a Pathology subspecialty, using their informatics training to enhance that practice (Clinical 1 + 1 Subspecialty Pathology and Informatics Track). Significantly, all fellows on this track reported they would not have considered a Clinical Two-year Focused Informatics track if it was the only track offered. The Research and the Clinical One-year Focused Informatics tracks each displayed unique value for different situations.
It seems a “one size fits all” fellowship structure does not fit the needs of the majority of potential Pathology Informatics candidates. Increasingly, these fellowships must be able to accommodate the needs of candidates anticipating a wide range of Pathology Informatics career paths, be able to accommodate Pathology's increasingly subspecialized structure, and do this in a way that respects the multiple fellowships needed to become a subspecialty pathologist and informatician. This is further complicated as Pathology Informatics begins to look outward and takes its place in the growing, and still ill-defined, field of Clinical Informatics, a field that is not confined to just one medical specialty, to one way of practicing medicine, or to one way of providing patient care.
Clinical informatics training; clinical informatics; fellowship tracks; informatics fellowship training; informatics teaching; pathology informatics fellowship; pathology informatics training; pathology informatics
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).
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.
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]).
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.
We sought to identify variables associated with American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS)-member-board certification and lack thereof among U.S. medical graduates who planned at medical-school graduation to become certified in surgery and entered graduate medical education (GME) in general surgery.
De-identified, individualized records updated through March 2009 for all 1993–2000 U.S. medical school matriculants who graduated by 2002, intended to become certified in surgery, and entered general surgery training were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression to identify variables associated with graduates’ board certification status, including American Board of Surgery (ABS)-board certified (BC), other ABMS-member-BC (other-BC) and non-BC.
Of 3373 graduates included in the study sample, 2036 (60.4 %) were ABS-BC, 342 (10.1 %) were other-BC, and 995 (29.5 %) were non-BC. Graduates who were women, > 26 years old at graduation, and initially failed United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (2CK) were more likely, and graduates who rated the quality of their surgery clerkship in medical school more highly were less likely, to be other-BC vs. ABS-BC. Graduates who were women, underrepresented minority race/ethnicity, Asian/Pacific Islander race/ethnicity, > 28 years old at graduation, initially failed USMLE Step 1, initially failed or received low passing scores on USMLE Step 2CK and graduated in more recent years were more likely to be non-BC vs. ABS-BC.
Demographic and professional development variables were associated with ABMS-member-board certification status among U.S. medical graduates who had intended at medical-school graduation to become certified in surgery.
Certification by an American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) member board is emerging as a measure of physician quality.
To identify demographic and educational factors associated with ABMS-member-board certification of US medical graduates.
Design, Setting, Participants
Retrospective study of a national cohort of 1997–2000 US medical graduates, grouped by specialty choice at graduation and followed up through March 2, 2009. In separate multivariable logistic regression models for each specialty category, factors associated with ABMS-member-board certification were identified.
Main Outcome Measure
Of 42 440 graduates in the study sample, 37 054 (87.3%) were board certified. Graduates in all specialty categories with first-attempt passing scores in the highest tertile (vs first-attempt failing scores) on US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Knowledge were more likely to be board certified; adjusted odds ratios (aOR) varied by specialty category with the lowest odds for emergency medicine (87.4% vs 73.6%; aOR, 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–3.20) and highest odds for radiology (98.1% vs 74.9%; aOR, 13.19; 95% CI, 5.55–31.32). In each specialty category except family medicine, graduates self-identified as underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities (vs white) were less likely to be board certified, ranging from 83.5% vs 95.6% in the pediatrics category (aOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.33–0.58) to 71.5% vs 83.7% in the other non-generalist specialties category (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64–0.96). With each $50 000 unit increase in debt (vs no debt), graduates choosing obstetrics/gynecology were less likely to be board certified (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83–0.96), and graduates choosing family medicine were more likely to be board certified (aOR 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01–1.26).
Demographic and educational factors were associated with board certification among US medical graduates in every specialty category examined; findings varied among specialty categories.
In 2007, our healthcare system established a clinical fellowship program in pathology informatics. In 2011, the program benchmarked its structure and operations against a 2009 white paper “Program requirements for fellowship education in the subspecialty of clinical informatics”, endorsed by the Board of the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) that described a proposal for a general clinical informatics fellowship program.
A group of program faculty members and fellows compared each of the proposed requirements in the white paper with the fellowship program's written charter and operations. The majority of white paper proposals aligned closely with the rules and activities in our program and comparison was straightforward. In some proposals, however, differences in terminology, approach, and philosophy made comparison less direct, and in those cases, the thinking of the group was recorded. After the initial evaluation, the remainder of the faculty reviewed the results and any disagreements were resolved.
The most important finding of the study was how closely the white paper proposals for a general clinical informatics fellowship program aligned with the reality of our existing pathology informatics fellowship. The program charter and operations of the program were judged to be concordant with the great majority of specific white paper proposals. However, there were some areas of discrepancy and the reasons for the discrepancies are discussed in the manuscript.
After the comparison, we conclude that the existing pathology informatics fellowship could easily meet all substantive proposals put forth in the 2009 clinical informatics program requirements white paper. There was also agreement on a number of philosophical issues, such as the advantages of multiple fellows, the need for core knowledge and skill sets, and the need to maintain clinical skills during informatics training. However, there were other issues, such as a requirement for a 2-year fellowship and for informatics fellowships to be done after primary board certification, that pathology should consider carefully as it moves toward a subspecialty status and board certification.
Pathology informatics fellowship; clinical informatics; clinical informatics fellowship; pathology informatics; pathology informatics teaching; clinical informatics teaching
Recent studies suggest that the supply of primary care physicians and generalist physicians in other specialties may be inadequate to meet the needs of the US population. Data on the numbers and types of physicians-in-training, such as those collected by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), can be used to help understand variables affecting this supply.
We assessed trends in the number and type of medical school graduates entering accredited residencies, and the impact those trends could have on the future physician workforce.
Since 2004, the ACGME has published annually its data on accredited institutions, programs, and residents to help the graduate medical education community understand major trends in residency education, and to help guide graduate medical education policy. We present key results and trends for the period between academic years 2003–2004 and 2012–2013.
The data show that increases in trainees in accredited programs are not uniform across specialties, or the types of medical school from which trainees graduated. In the past 10 years, the growth in residents entering training that culminates in initial board certification (“pipeline” specialties) was 13.0%, the number of trainees entering subspecialty education increased 39.9%. In the past 5 years, there has been a 25.8% increase in the number of osteopathic physicians entering allopathic programs.
These trends portend challenges in absorbing the increasing numbers of allopathic and osteopathic graduates, and US international graduates in accredited programs. The increasing trend in subspecialization appears at odds with the current understanding of the need for generalist physicians.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Specialists; workforce; supply
There has been an explosion of basic science results in the field of wound care over the past 20 years. Initially, wound dressings were the only therapeutic option available to the wound practitioner. With advanced basic science knowledge, technical innovation, and the recent participation of pharmaceutical companies, the wound clinician now has an arsenal of dressings, biological tissue replacements, gene therapy, and cell-based treatment options. What has not, however, kept pace with these changes is the education and practical training for those treating nonhealing wounds. The pace of innovation in wound diagnostic tools has also lagged, creating even more pressure on the clinician to use experience, skill, and training to properly diagnose the root cause for the nonhealing wound. As wound healing is not considered a medical specialty, there is no formal training process for physicians, and subsequently, allied health practitioners are often the only ones available to provide care for these complex patients. Wound care training, however, is also not part of any formal curriculum for these healthcare providers as well, creating confusion for patients, payors, regulators, researchers, and product manufacturers.
In all other fields of medicine there is a formal process in place for physicians to train, certify, and credential. Medicine is constantly evolving and there have been several new fields of specialty care created over the past two decades that can serve as examples for the wound care field to follow. Without academic-based, clinical residency/fellowship training in wound healing ultimately leading to formal certification, the field will be unable to achieve an appropriate status in the medical establishment. Achieving this goal will impact product innovation, payment, and the sustainability of the field.
Basic/Clinical Science Advances
The enhanced understanding of normal and dysregulated wound healing processes, which have been uncovered by basic scientists, has translated to the bedside through the creation of multiple advanced biological solutions for patients with nonhealing wounds.
Clinical Care Relevance
These advanced wound care therapeutics will require physician involvement in a way not previously seen in wound care. It will no longer be possible to practice wound care “part time” in the near future. The amount of new information and massive base of core knowledge required will mandate a full-time commitment. The increase in patients with this condition because of an aging population, increased numbers of diabetic patients, and the ever growing epidemic of obesity will mandate that all clinicians providing wound care will need to increase their skill sets through formal training. In addition, underserved patient populations are disproportionately affected and their outcomes are comparatively worse, further complicating the problem at a healthcare structural and policy level.
The American College of Wound Healing and Tissue Repair was founded in Illinois as a nonprofit organization whose express function is to organize university-based medical school programs around a common curriculum for physicians who want to specialize in wound healing. Currently, two wound care fellows have graduated from the University of Illinois at Chicago and other programs are under development. The ultimate process will be achieved when certification is accredited by an organization such as the American Board of Medical Specialties. This article outlines the current process in place to achieve this goal within 10 years.
Within health and health care, medical informatics and its subspecialties of biomedical, clinical, and public health informatics have emerged as a new discipline with increasing demands for its own work force. Knowledge and skills in medical informatics are widely acknowledged as crucial to future success in patient care, research relating to biomedicine, clinical care, and public health, as well as health policy design. The maturity of the domain and the demand on expertise necessitate standardized training and certification of professionals. The American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) embarked on a major effort to create professional level education and certification for physicians of various professions and specialties in informatics. This article focuses on the AMIA effort in the professional structure of medical specialization, e.g., the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and the related Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). This report summarizes the current progress to create a recognized sub-certificate of competence in Clinical Informatics and discusses likely near term (three to five year) implications on training, certification, and work force with an emphasis on clinical applied informatics.
Education; Professional training; Clinical informatics; Training and education requirements; General healthcare providers; Informatics specialists; Strategies for health IT training; Continuing professional development and continuing education
Cultural competency is an important skill that prepares physicians to care for patients from diverse backgrounds.
We reviewed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) program requirements and relevant documents from the ACGME website to evaluate competency requirements across specialties.
The program requirements for each specialty and its subspecialties were reviewed from December 2011 through February 2012. The review focused on the 3 competency domains relevant to culturally competent care: professionalism, interpersonal and communication skills, and patient care. Specialty and subspecialty requirements were assigned a score between 0 and 3 (from least specific to most specific). Given the lack of a standardized cultural competence rating system, the scoring was based on explicit mention of specific keywords.
A majority of program requirements fell into the low- or no-specificity score (1 or 0). This included 21 core specialties (leading to primary board certification) program requirements (78%) and 101 subspecialty program requirements (79%). For all specialties, cultural competency elements did not gravitate toward any particular competency domain. Four of 5 primary care program requirements (pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, family medicine, and psychiatry) acquired the high-specificity score of 3, in comparison to only 1 of 22 specialty care program requirements (physical medicine and rehabilitation).
The degree of specificity, as judged by use of keywords in 3 competency domains, in ACGME requirements regarding cultural competency is highly variable across specialties and subspecialties. Greater specificity in requirements is expected to benefit the acquisition of cultural competency in residents, but this has not been empirically tested.
Little is known about whether and how medical knowledge relates to interest in subspecialty fellowship training. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between residents' interest in subspecialty fellowship training and their knowledge of internal medicine (IM).
A questionnaire was emailed to 48 categorical postgraduate-year (PGY) two and three residents at a New York university-affiliated IM residency program in 2007 using the Survey Monkey online survey instrument. Overall and content area-specific percentile scores from the IM in-training examination (IM-ITE) for the same year was used to determine objective knowledge.
Forty-five of 48 residents (response rate was 93.8%) completed the survey. Twenty-two (49%) were PG2 residents and 23(51%) were PGY3 residents. Sixty percent of respondents were male. Six (13%) residents were graduates of U.S. medical schools. Eight (18%) reported formal clinical training prior to starting internal medicine residency in the U.S. Of this latter group, 6 (75%) had training in IM and 6 (75) % reported a training length of 3 years or less. Thirty-seven of 45 (82%) residents had a subspecialty fellowship interest. Residents with a fellowship interest had a greater mean overall objective knowledge percentile score (56.44 vs. 31.67; p = 0.04) as well as greater mean percentile scores in all content areas of IM. The adjusted mean difference was statistically significant (p < 0.02) across three content areas.
More than half of surveyed residents indicated interest in pursuing a subspecialty fellowship. Fellowship interest appears positively associated with general medical knowledge in this study population. Further work is needed to explore motivation and study patterns among internal medicine residents.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires an annual evaluation of all ACGME-accredited residency and fellowship programs to assess program quality. The results of this evaluation must be used to improve the program. This manuscript describes a metric to be used in conducting ACGME-mandated annual program review of ACGME-accredited anesthesiology residencies and fellowships.
A variety of metrics to assess anesthesiology residency and fellowship programs are identified by the authors through literature review and considered for use in constructing a program "report card."
Metrics used to assess program quality include success in achieving American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) certification, performance on the annual ABA/American Society of Anesthesiology In-Training Examination, performance on mock oral ABA certification examinations, trainee scholarly activities (publications and presentations), accreditation site visit and internal review results, ACGME and alumni survey results, National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) results, exit interview feedback, diversity data and extensive program/rotation/faculty/curriculum evaluations by trainees and faculty. The results are used to construct a "report card" that provides a high-level review of program performance and can be used in a continuous quality improvement process.
An annual program review is required to assess all ACGME-accredited residency and fellowship programs to monitor and improve program quality. We describe an annual review process based on metrics that can be used to focus attention on areas for improvement and track program performance year-to-year. A "report card" format is described as a high-level tool to track educational outcomes.
A few years ago, when the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology decided to phase out the patient-based oral examinations in its 3 primary specialties, requirements for assessing clinical skills during residency training were instituted.
The purpose of this report is to describe the experiences of training program directors and graduates with these new credentialing requirements (labeled CSEs) as well as other effects on the specialties.
Surveys were administered electronically in 2012 to all current neurology, child neurology, and psychiatry program directors, and to a convenience sample of graduates who applied for the 2012 certification examinations.
Response rates for graduates were similar across the 3 specialties but low (28%–33%). Response rates were higher for program directors (53%–62%) and were similar across the 3 specialties. The results indicated that the CSEs were usually administered early in training, were completed toward the end, were often passed on first attempt, generally took place during routine clinical assignments, were used to assess additional competencies, almost always included feedback to the residents, and did not often lead to remediation. Furthermore, the CSEs were perceived to be useful components in the assessment of clinical skills.
The results obtained from the early implementation of the CSEs suggest that they provide an opportunity to assess clinical skills with the additional benefit of feedback to trainees. Other effects included eventual incorporation into training program requirements, milestones, and related faculty development and research efforts.
Surgical educators have struggled with achieving an optimal balance between the service workload and education of surgical residents. In Ontario, a variety of factors during the past 12 years have had the net impact of reducing the clinical training experience of general surgery residents. We questioned what impact the reductions in trainee workload have had on general surgery graduates at the University of Toronto.
We evaluated graduates from the University of Toronto general surgery training program from 1995 to 2006. We compared final-year In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITERs) of trainees during this interval. For purposes of comparison, we subdivided residents into 4 groups according to year of graduation (1995–1997, 1998–2000, 2001–2003 and 2004–2006). We evaluated postgraduate “performance” by categorizing residents into 1 of 4 groups: first, residents who entered directly into general surgery practice after graduation; second, residents who entered into a certification subspecialty program of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC); third, residents who entered into a noncertification program of the RCPSC; and fourth, residents who entered into a variety of nonregulated “clinical fellowships.”
We assessed and evaluated 118 of 134 surgical trainees (88%) in this study. We included in the study graduates for whom completed ITER records were available and postgraduate training records were known and validated. The mean scores for each of the 5 evaluated residency training parameters included in the ITER (technical skills, professional attitudes, application of knowledge, teaching performance and overall performance) were not statistically different for each of the 4 graduating groups from 1995 to 2006. However, we determined that there were statistically fewer general surgery graduates (p < 0.05) who entered directly into general surgery practice in the 2004–2006 group compared with the 1998–2000 and 2001–2003 groups. The graduates from 2004 to 2006 who did not enter into general surgery practice appeared to choose a clinical fellowship.
These observations may indicate that recent surgical graduates possess an acceptable skill set but may lack the clinical confidence and experience to enter directly into general surgery practice. Evidence seems to indicate that the clinical fellowship has become an unregulated surrogate extension of the training program whereby surgeons can gain additional clinical experience and surgical expertise.
Training in internal medicine has significantly evolved alongside the development of science, technology and new facilities during the past fifty years. After the specialty of internal medicine, there are multiple subspecialty training programs which have started since 1985 in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this manuscript we want to define the characteristics of the gastroenterology subspecialty training program in our country.
The characteristics of approved gastroenterology training centers were gathered through a questionnaire. The questionnaire was consisted; the establishment date, the number and academic rank of trainers, the number of trainees, hospital beds, the number and types of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in a year, the characteristics of training programs and their curriculum composition. The collected data was discussed and revised in a focused group of gastroenterologists from training centers and the board members of Iranian Association of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (IAGH).
There are 11 training centers with 94 trainers and 65 trainees, with a ratio of trainers to trainees of 1.36. Fifty four percent of trainers are assistant professor. Yearly, 36 new fellows are admitted. Four centers have adequate facilities for training in advanced gastroenterology, and in three centers there are facilities for liver transplantation. The duration of training in internal medicine is four years, whereas in gastroenterology it is two years. The admission for this subspecialty is not university based and with other subspecialty programs, there is a national entrance examination.
There are adequate well known training centers with a suitable ratio of trainer to trainee in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The duration of the GI fellowship is short and implementation of post subspecialty programs for completing the required capabilities of fellows is necessary. The capacity of fellowship admission should be revised according to needs of the country in the fields of health maintenance, research and medical education programs.
Gastroenterology; Training; Iran
One challenge facing the health care workforce is a paucity of pediatrics subspecialists. No prior studies have investigated fellowship noncompletion as an influence of the subspecialty workforce.
We sought to determine the noncompletion rate for pediatric rheumatology fellowships and to identify demographic characteristics associated with noncompletion.
A retrospective cohort study of all trainees entering US pediatric rheumatology fellowship programs between 1997 and 2007 was performed. American Board of Pediatrics tracking data were used to determine completion status (completer or noncompleter) for each trainee. Completers were compared with noncompleters, using the independent variables sex, medical school location, and age. The noncompletion rate was calculated overall and individually. Program size was examined as a predictor of nonompletion rate. Data analysis used χ2 tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Spearman correlation.
The cohort included 182 trainees from 28 pediatric rheumatology fellowship programs. Program size ranged from 1 to 18 trainees. The overall noncompletion rate was 16%. Male fellows, especially male international medical graduates, were more likely to be noncompleters. Noncompletion rates varied among programs: 15 programs had noncompletion rates of 0% and 4 programs had noncompletion rates of 50% or higher. Program size was not associated with noncompletion rate.
During the study period, 1 of 6 pediatric rheumatology fellows did not complete training. Noncompletion was concentrated in a small number of programs. Further research should investigate noncompletion across specialties, identifying the causes of noncompletion at the individual, program, and specialty levels to inform future interventions to improve fellowship completion.
It is a great honor to conduct an interview with Professor Mark G. Hans, after
following his outstanding work ahead of the Bolton-Brush Growth Study Center and the
Department of Orthodontics at the prestigious Case Western Reserve School of Dental
Medicine (CWRU) in Cleveland, Ohio. Born in Berea, Ohio, Professor Mark Hans attended
Yale University in New Haven, CT, and earned his Bachelor of Science Degree in
Chemistry. Upon graduation, Dr. Hans received his DDS and Masters Degree of Science
in Dentistry with specialty certification in Orthodontics at Case Western Reserve
University. During his education, Dr. Hans' Master's Thesis won the Harry Sicher
Award for Best Research by an Orthodontic Student and being granted a Presidential
Teaching Fellowship. As one of the youngest doctors ever certified by the American
Board of Orthodontics, Dr. Hans continues to maintain his board certification. He has
worked through academics on a variety of research interests, that includes the
demographics of orthodontic practice, digital radiographic data, dental and
craniofacial genetics, as obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, with selected
publications in these fields. One of his noteworthy contributions to the orthodontic
literature came along with Dr. Donald Enlow on the pages of "Essentials of Facial
Growth", being reference on the study of craniofacial growth and development. Dr.
Mark Hans's academic career is linked to CWRU, recognized as the renowned birthplace
of research on craniofacial growth and development, where the classic Bolton-Brush
Growth Study was historically set. Today, Dr. Hans is the Director of The
Bolton-Brush Growth Study Center, performing, with great skill and dedication, the
handling of the larger longitudinal sample of bone growth study. He is Associate Dean
for Graduate Studies, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Orthodontics,
working in clinical and theoretical activities with students of the Undergraduate
Course from the School of Dental Medicine and residents in the Department of
Orthodontics at CWRU. Part of his clinical practice at the university is devoted to
the treatment of craniofacial anomalies and to special needs patients. Prof. Mark
Hans has been wisely conducting the Joint Cephalometric Experts Group (JCEG) since
2008, held at the School of Dental Medicine (CWRU). He coordinates a team composed of
American, Asian, Brazilian and European researchers and clinicians, working on the
transition from 2D cephalometrics to 3D cone beam imaging as well as 3D models for
diagnosis, treatment planning and assessment of orthodontic outcomes. Dr. Hans
travels to different countries to give lectures on his fields of interest. Besides,
he still maintains a clinical orthodontic practice at his private office. In every
respect, Dr. Hans coordinates all activities with particular skill and performance.
Married to Susan, they have two sons, Thomas and Jack and one daughter, Sarah and he
enjoys playing jazz guitar for family and friends.
Matilde da Cunha Gonçalves Nojima
Physician training and standards for medical licensure differ widely across the globe. The medical education process in the United States (US) typically involves a minimum of 11 years of formal training and multiple standardized examinations between graduating from secondary school and becoming an attending physician with full medical licensure. Students in the US traditionally enter a 4-year medical school after completing an undergraduate bachelor’s degree, in contrast to most other countries where medical training begins after graduation from high school. Medical school seniors planning to practice medicine in the US must complete postgraduate clinical training, referred to as residency, within the specialty of their choosing. The duration of residency varies depending on specialty, typically lasting between 3 and 7 years. For subspecialty fields, additional clinical training is often required in the form of a fellowship. Many experts have called for changes in the medical education system to shorten medical training in the US, and reforms are ongoing in some institutions. However, physician education in the US generally remains a progression from undergraduate premedical coursework to 4 years of medical school, followed by residency training with an optional subspecialty fellowship.
Medical education; medical schools; internship and residency; physicians; medical licensure