Development and Pilot Testing of a Programmatic System for Competency Assessment in US Anesthesiology Residency Training.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, a set of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and procedural skills assessments were developed for anesthesiology training, but they did not assess all the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. The aims of this study were to (1) remap the 2018 EPA and procedural skills assessments to the revised ACGME Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0, (2) develop new assessments that combined with the original assessments to create a system of assessment that addresses all level 1 to 4 milestones, and (3) provide evidence for the validity of the assessments. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, a panel of anesthesiology education experts remapped the original assessments developed in 2018 to the Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0 and developed new assessments to create a system that assessed all level 1 through 4 milestones. Following a 24-month pilot at 7 institutions, the number of EPA and procedural skill assessments and mean scores were computed at the end of the academic year. Milestone achievement and subcompetency data for assessments from a single institution were compared to scores assigned by the institution's clinical competency committee (CCC). RESULTS: New assessment development, 2 months of testing and feedback, and revisions resulted in 5 new EPAs, 11 nontechnical skills assessments (NTSAs), and 6 objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). Combined with the original 20 EPAs and procedural skills assessments, the new system of assessment addresses 99% of level 1 to 4 Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0. During the 24-month pilot, aggregate mean EPA and procedural skill scores significantly increased with year in training. System subcompetency scores correlated significantly with 15 of 23 (65.2%) corresponding CCC scores at a single institution, but 8 correlations (36.4%) were <30.0, illustrating poor correlation. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of experts developed a set of EPAs, procedural skill assessment, NTSAs, and OSCEs to form a programmatic system of assessment for anesthesiology residency training in the United States. The method used to develop and pilot test the assessments, the progression of assessment scores with time in training, and the correlation of assessment scores with CCC scoring of milestone achievement provide evidence for the validity of the assessments.

Above the GRADE: Evaluation of Guidelines in Critical Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVES: We examined recommendations within critical care guidelines to describe the pairing patterns for strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. We further identified recommendations where the reported strength of recommendation was strong while the reported quality of evidence was not high/moderate and then assessed whether such pairings were within five paradigmatic situations offered by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to justify such pairings. DATA SOURCES AND EXTRACTION: We identified all clinical critical care guidelines published online from 2011 to 2017 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine along with individual guidelines published by Surviving Sepsis Campaign, Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, and the Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society. DATA SYNTHESIS: In all, 15 documents specifying 681 eligible recommendations demonstrated variation in strength of recommendation (strong n = 215 [31.6%], weak n = 345 [50.7%], none n = 121 [17.8%]) and in quality of evidence (high n = 41 [6.0%], moderate n = 151 [22.2%], low/very low n = 298 [43.8%], and Expert Consensus/none n = 191 [28.1%]). Strength of recommendation and quality of evidence were positively correlated (ρ = 0.66; p < 0.0001). Of 215 strong recommendations, 69 (32.1%) were discordantly paired with evidence other than high/moderate. Twenty-two of 69 (31.9%) involved Strong/Expert Consensus recommendations, a category discouraged by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Forty-seven of 69 recommendations (68.1%) were comprised of Strong/Low or Strong/Very Low variation requiring justification within five paradigmatic scenarios. Among distribution in the five paradigmatic scenarios of Strong/Low and Strong/Very Low recommendations, the most common paradigmatic scenario was life threatening situation (n = 20/47; 42.6%). Four Strong/Low or Strong/Very Low recommendations (4/47; 8.5%) were outside Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Among a large, diverse assembly of critical care guideline recommendations using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology, the strength of evidence of a recommendation was generally associated with the quality of evidence. However, strong recommendations were not infrequently made in the absence of high/moderate quality of evidence. To improve clarity and uptake, future guideline statements may specify why such pairings were made, avoid such pairings when outside of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, and consider separate language for Expert Consensus recommendations (good practice statements).

Contemporary treatment and outcomes of zygomycosis in a non-oncologic tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: Zygomycosis is an emerging mycosis of increasing relevance. Limited data exist for outcomes with contemporary therapies. METHODS: A 6-year retrospective chart review was performed in a non-oncological tertiary care center for patients with zygomycosis. RESULTS: Sixteen episodes of proven (EORTC/MSG criteria) zygomycosis were identified. The average age was 49.2 years. Sites of infection were surgical/traumatic wound [5], rhinocerebral [4], disseminated [2], pulmonary [2], peritoneal [2], and localized skin [1]. Associated conditions included diabetes [7], ketoacidosis [2], end-stage renal disease [4], surgery/trauma [4], steroids [3], solid organ transplant [2], neutropenia [1], and intravenous drug use [1]. Twelve patients had surgical debridement. Medical therapy included liposomal amphotericin B, conventional amphotericin B (CAB), and amphotericin B lipid complex. Overall mortality was 4/16 (25%), occurring in a patient each with rhinocerebral, pulmonary, surgical wound infection, and disseminated disease. Mortality with surgical treatment was 2/12 (17%) vs. 2/4 (50%) without surgery. Mortality for patients treated with CAB was 1/3 vs. 3/12 for those treated with any lipid preparation. Serious morbidity occurred in 7/12 survivors. CONCLUSIONS: In this limited study of contemporary therapies, patients with zygomycosis from a non-oncological tertiary care center have lower mortality than classically described. This disease and its treatments are still associated with severe morbidity, disfigurement, and disability.

Invasive candidiasis in immunocompromised hospitalized patients.

The frequency of infections by Candida species is increasing worldwide, with candidemia representing the fourth most common bloodstream infection in the U.S. The risk of infection is especially high in the immunocompromised, hospitalized patient. The treatment of and prophylaxis for Candida infection have led to the emergence of resistant species and the acquisition of resistance in previously susceptible species. Current therapeutic options include amphotericin B and its lipid compounds, fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, and caspofungin. Research is focusing on better diagnostics and the evaluation of strategies such as prophylaxis in high-risk hosts and pre-emptive therapy.