The critical role of infrastructure and organizational culture in implementing competency-based education and individualized pathways in undergraduate medical education.

In 2010, several key works in medical education predicted the changes necessary to train modern physicians to meet current and future challenges in health care, including the standardization of learning outcomes paired with individualized learning processes. The reframing of a medical expert as a flexible, adaptive team member and change agent, effective within a larger system and responsive to the community's needs, requires a new approach to education: competency-based medical education (CBME). CBME is an outcomes-based developmental approach to ensuring each trainee's readiness to advance through stages of training and continue to grow in unsupervised practice. Implementation of CBME with fidelity is a complex and challenging endeavor, demanding a fundamental shift in organizational culture and investment in appropriate infrastructure. This paper outlines how member schools of the American Medical Association Accelerating Change in Medical Education Consortium developed and implemented CBME, including common challenges and successes. Critical supporting factors include adoption of the master adaptive learner construct, longitudinal views of learner development, coaching, and a supportive learning environment.

What can regulatory bodies do to help implement competency-based medical education?

In response to the numerous challenges resident trainees currently face in their ability to competently acquire the requisite skills, knowledge and attitudes upon graduation, medical educators have looked to a competency-based medical education (CBME) approach as a possible solution. As CBME has already been implemented in many jurisdictions around the world, certain challenges in implementation have been experienced. One important challenge identified relates to how regulatory bodies can either assist or unintentionally hinder implementation. By examining the varied experiences from Canada, the USA and the Netherlands in implementing CBME, this paper identifies how regulatory bodies can support and advance worldwide efforts of furthering its implementation. If regulatory bodies restructure accreditation and regulatory criteria to align with CBME principles, work together in a coordinated fashion to ensure alignment of vital regulatory meaures throughout the training and practice continuum of a physician, and allow for (if not incentivize) individuals and programs to be innovative in adapting CBME to meet their local environments, it is likely that the worldwide implementation of CBME will occur successfully.

Psychology and learning: The role of the clinical learning environment.

The clinical learning environment for the postgraduate education of physicians significantly influences the learning process and the outcomes of learning. Two critical aspects of the learning environment, when viewed through a psychology lens are (1) constructs from psychology relevant to learning, such as cognitive load theory and learner self-efficacy; and (2) psychological attributes of the context in which learning occurs such as psychological safety and "Just Culture". In this paper, we address selected psychological aspects of the clinical learning environment, with a particular focus on the establishment and sustainment of psychological safety in the clinical learning environment for physicians. Psychological safety is defined as individuals' perceptions that they can speak out in the learning or working context without consequences for their professional standing or risks to their status on work teams or groups. We close with seven critical strategies for use by educators, learners, health systems leaders, and other stakeholders to contribute to a clinical environment that optimizes learning. These dimensions can also provide avenues for future research to enhance the community's understanding of psychological constructs operating in the clinical learning environment.

The clinical learning environment.

Learning in a clinical context is foundational in the training of health professionals; there is simply no alternative. The subject of the clinical learning environment (CLE) is at the forefront of discussions. In this introduction to a themed issue on the CLE, we present an expanded conceptual model that approaches the CLE through six different lenses, termed "avenues:" architectural, digital, diversity and inclusion, education, psychological, and sociocultural, with each avenue represented by a paper. The aim is to facilitate dialog around the contributions of different academic disciplines to research on the CLE. Collectively the papers highlight the overlap between the various "avenues" in how they influence each other, and how they collectively have shaped the work to understand and improve the CLE. The expectation is that the various avenues can add to existing knowledge and create new ideas for interventions to improve the clinical learning environment across nations for learners and teachers with the ultimate aim of improving patient care. Research and efforts to improve the CLE are critical to learning, professional socialization and well-being for trainees as they learn and participate in patient care, and to the quality of care they will deliver over decades of practice after graduation.

Financing U.S. Graduate Medical Education: A Policy Position Paper of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine and the American College of Physicians.

In this position paper, the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine and the American College of Physicians examine the state of graduate medical education (GME) financing in the United States and recent proposals to reform GME funding. They make a series of recommendations to reform the current funding system to better align GME with the needs of the nation's health care workforce. These recommendations include using Medicare GME funds to meet policy goals and to ensure an adequate supply of physicians, a proper specialty mix, and appropriate training sites; spreading the costs of financing GME across the health care system; evaluating the true cost of training a resident and establishing a single per-resident amount; increasing transparency and innovation; and ensuring that primary care residents receive training in well-functioning ambulatory settings that are financially supported for their training roles.

The Internal Medicine Reporting Milestones: Cross-sectional Description of Initial Implementation in U.S. Residency Programs.

BACKGROUND: High-quality assessment of resident performance is needed to guide individual residents' development and ensure their preparedness to provide patient care. To facilitate this aim, reporting milestones are now required across all internal medicine (IM) residency programs. OBJECTIVE: To describe initial milestone ratings for the population of IM residents by IM residency programs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: IM residency programs. PARTICIPANTS: All IM residents whose residency program directors submitted milestone data at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year. MEASUREMENTS: Ratings addressed 6 competencies and 22 subcompetencies. A rating of "not assessable" indicated insufficient information to evaluate the given subcompetency. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe ratings across competencies and training years. RESULTS: Data were available for all 21 774 U.S. IM residents from all 383 programs. Overall, 2889 residents (1621 in postgraduate year 1 [PGY-1], 902 in PGY-2, and 366 in PGY-3) had at least 1 subcompetency rated as not assessable. Summaries of average ratings by competency and training year showed higher ratings for PGY-3 residents in all competencies. Overall ratings for each of the 6 individual competencies showed that fewer than 1% of third-year residents were rated as "unsatisfactory" or "conditional on improvement." However, when subcompetency milestone ratings were used, 861 residents (12.8%) who successfully completed training had at least 1 competency with all corresponding subcompetencies graded below the threshold of "readiness for unsupervised practice." LIMITATION: Data were derived from a point in time in the first reporting period in which milestones were used. CONCLUSION: The initial milestone-based evaluations of IM residents nationally suggest that documenting developmental progression of competency is possible over training years. Subcompetencies may identify areas in which residents might benefit from additional feedback and experience. Future work is needed to explore how milestones are used to support residents' development and enhance residency curricula. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Changing the culture of medical training: An important step toward the implementation of competency-based medical education.

OBJECTIVE: The current medical education system is steeped in tradition and has been shaped by many long-held beliefs and convictions about the essential components of training. The objective of this article is to propose initiatives to overcome biases against competency-based medical education (CBME) in the culture of medical education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At a retreat of the International Competency Based Medical Education (ICBME) Collaborators group, an intensive brainstorming session was held to determine potential barriers to adoption of CBME in the culture of medical education. This was supplemented with a review of the literature on the topic. RESULTS: There continues to exist significant key barriers to the widespread adoption of CBME. Change in educational culture must be embraced by all components of the medical education hierarchy. Research is essential to provide convincing evidence of the benefit of CBME. CONCLUSIONS: The widespread adoption of CBME will require a change in the professional, institutional, and organizational culture surrounding the training of medical professionals.

Implementing competency-based medical education: What changes in curricular structure and processes are needed?

Medical educators must prepare for a number of challenges when they decide to implement a competency-based curriculum. Many of these challenges will pertain to three key aspects of implementation: organizing the structural changes that will be necessary to deliver new curricula and methods of assessment; modifying the processes of teaching and evaluation; and helping to change the culture of education so that the CBME paradigm gains acceptance. This paper focuses on nine key considerations that will support positive change in first two of these areas. Key considerations include: ensuring that educational continuity exists amongst all levels of medical education, altering how time is used in medical education, involving CBME in human health resources planning, ensuring that competent doctors work in competent health care systems, ensuring that information technology supports CBME, ensuring that faculty development is supported, ensuring that the rights and responsibilities of the learner are appropriately balanced in the workplace, preparing for the costs of change, and having appropriate leadership in order to achieve success in implementation.

Overarching challenges to the implementation of competency-based medical education.

Medical education is under increasing pressure to more effectively prepare physicians to meet the needs of patients and populations. With its emphasis on individual, programmatic, and institutional outcomes, competency-based medical education (CBME) has the potential to realign medical education with this societal expectation. Implementing CBME, however, comes with significant challenges. This manuscript describes four overarching challenges that must be confronted by medical educators worldwide in the implementation of CBME: (1) the need to align all regulatory stakeholders in order to facilitate the optimization of training programs and learning environments so that they support competency-based progression; (2) the purposeful integration of efforts to redesign both medical education and the delivery of clinical care; (3) the need to establish expected outcomes for individuals, programs, training institutions, and health care systems so that performance can be measured; and (4) the need to establish a culture of mutual accountability for the achievement of these defined outcomes. In overcoming these challenges, medical educators, leaders, and policy-makers will need to seek collaborative approaches to common problems and to learn from innovators who have already successfully made the transition to CBME.

Precision Education: The Future of Lifelong Learning in Medicine.

ABSTRACT: The goal of medical education is to produce a physician workforce capable of delivering high-quality equitable care to diverse patient populations and communities. To achieve this aim amidst explosive growth in medical knowledge and increasingly complex medical care, a system of personalized and continuous learning, assessment, and feedback for trainees and practicing physicians is urgently needed. In this perspective, the authors build on prior work to advance a conceptual framework for such a system: precision education (PE).PE is a system that uses data and technology to transform lifelong learning by improving personalization, efficiency, and agency at the individual, program, and organization levels. PE "cycles" start with data inputs proactively gathered from new and existing sources, including assessments, educational activities, electronic medical records, patient care outcomes, and clinical practice patterns. Through technology-enabled analytics , insights are generated to drive precision interventions . At the individual level, such interventions include personalized just-in-time educational programming. Coaching is essential to provide feedback and increase learner participation and personalization. Outcomes are measured using assessment and evaluation of interventions at the individual, program, and organizational levels, with ongoing adjustment for repeated cycles of improvement. PE is rooted in patient, health system, and population data; promotes value-based care and health equity; and generates an adaptive learning culture.The authors suggest fundamental principles for PE, including promoting equity in structures and processes, learner agency, and integration with workflow (harmonization). Finally, the authors explore the immediate need to develop consensus-driven standards: rules of engagement between people, products, and entities that interact in these systems to ensure interoperability, data sharing, replicability, and scale of PE innovations.

Physician performance assessment: prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Given the rising burden of healthcare costs, both patients and healthcare purchasers are interested in discerning which physicians deliver quality care. We proposed a methodology to assess physician clinical performance in preventive cardiology care, and determined a benchmark for minimally acceptable performance. We used data on eight evidence-based clinical measures from 811 physicians that completed the American Board of Internal Medicine's Preventive Cardiology Practice Improvement Module(SM) to form an overall composite score for preventive cardiology care. An expert panel of nine internists/cardiologists skilled in preventive care for cardiovascular disease used an adaptation of the Angoff standard-setting method and the Dunn-Rankin method to create the composite and establish a standard. Physician characteristics were used to examine the validity of the inferences made from the composite scores. The mean composite score was 73.88 % (SD = 11.88 %). Reliability of the composite was high at 0.87. Specialized cardiologists had significantly lower composite scores (P = 0.04), while physicians who reported spending more time in primary, longitudinal, and preventive consultative care had significantly higher scores (P = 0.01), providing some evidence of score validity. The panel established a standard of 47.38 % on the composite measure with high classification accuracy (0.98). Only 2.7 % of the physicians performed below the standard for minimally acceptable preventive cardiovascular disease care. Of those, 64 % (N = 14) were not general cardiologists. Our study presents a psychometrically defensible methodology for assessing physician performance in preventive cardiology while also providing relative feedback with the hope of heightening physician awareness about deficits and improving patient care.

The triple helix of clinical, research, and education missions in academic health centers: A qualitative study of diverse stakeholder perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Academic health centers are poised to improve health through their clinical, education, and research missions. However, these missions often operate in silos. The authors explored stakeholder perspectives at diverse institutions to understand challenges and identify alignment strategies. METHODS: Authors used an exploratory qualitative design and thematic analysis approach with data obtained from electronic surveys sent to participants at five U.S. academic health centers (2017-18), with four different types of medical school/health system partnerships. Participants included educators, researchers, system leaders, administrators, clinical providers, resident/fellow physicians, and students. Investigators coded data using constant comparative analysis, met regularly to reconcile uncertainties, and collapsed/combined categories. RESULTS: Of 175 participants invited, 113 completed the survey (65%). Three results categories were identified. First, five higher-order themes emerged related to aligning missions, including (a) shared vision and strategies, (b) alignment of strategy with community needs, (c) tension of economic drivers, (d) coproduction of knowledge, and (e) unifying set of concepts spanning all missions. Second, strategies for each mission were identified, including education (new competencies, instructional methods, recruitment), research (shifting agenda, developing partnerships, operations), and clinical operations (delivery models, focus on patient factors/needs, value-based care, well-being). Lastly, strategies for integrating each dyadic mission pair, including research-education, clinical operations education, and research-clinical operations, were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Academic health centers are at a crossroads in regard to identity and alignment across the tripartite missions. The study's results provide pragmatic strategies to advance the tripartite missions and lead necessary change for improved patient health.

Resident identification of learning objectives after performing self-assessment based upon the ACGME core competencies.

BACKGROUND: Self-assessment is increasingly being incorporated into competency evaluation in residency training. Little research has investigated the characteristics of residents' learning objectives and action plans after self-assessment. OBJECTIVE: To explore the frequency and specificity of residents' learning objectives and action plans after completing either a highly or minimally structured self-assessment. DESIGN: Internal Medicine residents (N = 90) were randomized to complete a highly or minimally structured self-assessment instrument based on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Core Competencies. All residents then identified learning objectives and action plans. MEASUREMENTS: Learning objectives and action plans were analyzed for content. Differences in specificity and content related to form, gender, and training level were assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-six residents (84% response rate) identified 178 learning objectives. Objectives were general (79%), most often focused on medical knowledge (40%), and were not related to the type of form completed (p > 0.01). "Reading more" was the most common action plan. CONCLUSIONS: Residents commonly identify general learning objectives focusing on medical knowledge regardless of the structure of the self-assessment form. Tools and processes that further facilitate self-assessment should be identified.

Self-assessment of practice performance: development of the ABIM Practice Improvement Module (PIM).

BACKGROUND: Quality measurement and improvement in practice are requirements for Maintenance of Certification by the American Board of Medical Specialties boards and a component of many pay for performance programs. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Practice Improvement Module (PIM) and the average performance of ABIM diplomates who have completed the Preventive Cardiology PIM. DESIGN: Observational study of self-administered practice quality improvement. SETTING: Office practices through the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 179 cardiologists and general internists completing requirements for ABIM Maintenance of Certification from 2004 through 2005. MEASUREMENTS: Physicians self-audited at least 25 charts to obtain performance measures, patient demographics, and coronary heart disease risk factors. At least 25 patients completed surveys regarding their experience of care in the physician's practice. Physicians completed a self-assessment survey detailing the presence of various practice systems. RESULTS: The mean rate for systolic blood pressure control was 48%, for diastolic blood pressure 84%, and for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol at goal 65%. Of patients 61% rated the quality of care as excellent and 58% rated the practices excellent at encouraging questions and answering them clearly. More than 85% of patients reported "no problem" obtaining a prescription refill, scheduling an appointment, reaching someone in the practice with a question, or obtaining lab results. Targets for improvement were increasing the rates for LDL cholesterol or systolic blood pressure at goal, improving patients' physical activity, patient education, and accuracy of risk assessment. Improvement strategies included implementing chart forms, patient education, or care management processes. LIMITATIONS: Patients and charts were selected by physicians reporting their performance for the purpose of MOC. CONCLUSIONS: The Preventive Cardiology PIM successfully provides a self-assessment of practice performance and provides guidance in helping physicians initiate a cycle of quality improvement in their practices.

Concerns and Responses for Integrating Health Systems Science Into Medical Education.

With the aim of improving the health of individuals and populations, medical schools are transforming curricula to ensure physician competence encompasses health systems science (HSS), which includes population health, health policy, high-value care, interprofessional teamwork, leadership, quality improvement, and patient safety. Large-scale, meaningful integration remains limited, however, and a major challenge in HSS curricular transformation efforts relates to the receptivity and engagement of students, educators, clinicians, scientists, and health system leaders. The authors identify several widely perceived challenges to integrating HSS into medical school curricula, respond to each concern, and provide potential strategies to address these concerns, based on their experiences designing and integrating HSS curricula. They identify two broad categories of concerns: the (1) relevance and importance of learning HSS-including the perception that there is inadequate urgency for change; HSS education is too complex and should occur in later years; early students would not be able to contribute, and the roles already exist; and the science is too nascent-and (2) logistics and practicality of teaching HSS-including limited curricular time, scarcity of faculty educators with expertise, lack of support from accreditation agencies and licensing boards, and unpreparedness of evolving health care systems to partner with schools with HSS curricula. The authors recommend the initiation and continuation of discussions between educators, clinicians, basic science faculty, health system leaders, and accrediting and regulatory bodies about the goals and priorities of medical education, as well as about the need to collaborate on new methods of education to reach these goals.

Proposed Performance-Based Metrics for the Future Funding of Graduate Medical Education: Starting the Conversation.

Graduate medical education (GME) in the United States is financed by contributions from both federal and state entities that total over $15 billion annually. Within institutions, these funds are distributed with limited transparency to achieve ill-defined outcomes. To address this, the Institute of Medicine convened a committee on the governance and financing of GME to recommend finance reform that would promote a physician training system that meets society's current and future needs. The resulting report provided several recommendations regarding the oversight and mechanisms of GME funding, including implementation of performance-based GME payments, but did not provide specific details about the content and development of metrics for these payments. To initiate a national conversation about performance-based GME funding, the authors asked: What should GME be held accountable for in exchange for public funding? In answer to this question, the authors propose 17 potential performance-based metrics for GME funding that could inform future funding decisions. Eight of the metrics are described as exemplars to add context and to help readers obtain a deeper understanding of the inherent complexities of performance-based GME funding. The authors also describe considerations and precautions for metric implementation.