National Profile of the ACGME Milestones 1.0 and 2.0 within General Surgery: A Seven-Year National Study from 2014 to 2021.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced General Surgery Milestones 1.0 in 2014 and Milestones 2.0 in 2020 as steps toward competency-based training. Analysis will inform residency programs on curriculum development, assessment, feedback, and faculty development. This study describes the distributions and trends for Milestones 1.0 and 2.0 ratings and proportion of residents not achieving the level 4.0 graduation target. METHODS: A deidentified dataset of milestone ratings for all ACGME-accredited General Surgery residency programs in the United States was used. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) were reported for milestone ratings at each PGY level. Percentages of PGY-5s receiving final year ratings of less than 4.0 were calculated. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare 1.0 and 2.0 median ratings. Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used to compare median ratings across time periods and PGY levels. Chi-squared tests were used to compare the proportion of level 4.0 nonachievement under both systems. RESULTS: Milestones 1.0 data consisted of 13,866 residents and Milestones 2.0 data consisted of 7,633 residents. For 1.0 and 2.0, all competency domain median ratings were higher for subsequent years of training. Milestones 2.0 had significantly higher median ratings at all PGY levels for all competency domains except Medical Knowledge. Percentages of PGY-5 residents not achieving the graduation target in Milestones 1.0 ranged from 27% to 42% and in 2.0 from 5% to 13%. For Milestones 1.0, all subcompetencies showed an increased number of residents achieving the graduation target from 2014 to 2019. CONCLUSIONS: This study of General Surgery Milestones 1.0 and 2.0 data uncovered significant increases in average ratings and significantly fewer residents not achieving the graduation target under the 2.0 system. We hypothesize that these findings may be related more to rating bias given the change in rating scales, rather than a true increase in resident ability.