Programmatic Assessment of Clinical Reasoning: New Opportunities to Meet an Ongoing Challenge.

Issue: Clinical reasoning is essential to physicians' competence, yet assessment of clinical reasoning remains a significant challenge. Clinical reasoning is a complex, evolving, non-linear, context-driven, and content-specific construct which arguably cannot be assessed at one point in time or with a single method. This has posed challenges for educators for many decades, despite significant development of individual assessment methods. Evidence: Programmatic assessment is a systematic assessment approach that is gaining momentum across health professions education. Programmatic assessment, and in particular assessment for learning, is well-suited to address the challenges with clinical reasoning assessment. Several key principles of programmatic assessment are particularly well-aligned with developing a system to assess clinical reasoning: longitudinality, triangulation, use of a mix of assessment methods, proportionality, implementation of intermediate evaluations/reviews with faculty coaches, use of assessment for feedback, and increase in learners' agency. Repeated exposure and measurement are critical to develop a clinical reasoning assessment narrative, thus the assessment approach should optimally be longitudinal, providing multiple opportunities for growth and development. Triangulation provides a lens to assess the multidimensionality and contextuality of clinical reasoning and that of its different, yet related components, using a mix of different assessment methods. Proportionality ensures the richness of information on which to draw conclusions is commensurate with the stakes of the decision. Coaching facilitates the development of a feedback culture and allows to assess growth over time, while enhancing learners' agency. Implications: A programmatic assessment model of clinical reasoning that is developmentally oriented, optimizes learning though feedback and coaching, uses multiple assessment methods, and provides opportunity for meaningful triangulation of data can help address some of the challenges of clinical reasoning assessment.

Accuracy of Entrustment-Based Assessment: Implications for Programs and Patients.

Background Although entrustment-supervision ratings are more intuitive compared to other rating scales, it is not known whether their use accurately assesses the appropriateness of care provided by a resident. Objective To determine the frequency of incorrect entrustment ratings assigned by faculty and whether accuracy of an entrustment-supervision scale differed by resident performance when the scripted resident performance level is known. Methods Faculty participants rated standardized residents in 10 videos using a 4-point entrustment-supervision scale. We calculated the frequency of rating a resident incorrectly. We performed generalizability (G) and decision (D) studies for all 10 cases (768 ratings) and repeated the analysis using only cases with an entrustment score of 2. Results The mean score by 77 raters for all videos was 2.87 (SD=0.86) with a mean of 2.37 (SD=0.72), 3.11 (SD=0.67) and 3.78 (SD=0.43) for the scripted levels of 2, 3, and 4. Faculty ratings differed from the scripted score for 331of 768 (43%) ratings. Most errors were ratings higher than the scripted score (223, 67%). G studies estimated the variance proportions of rater and case to be 4.99% and 54.29%. D studies estimated that 3 raters would need to watch 10 cases. The variance proportion of rater was 8.5% when the analysis was restricted to level 2 entrustment, requiring 15 raters to watch 5 cases. Conclusions Participants underestimated residents' potential need for greater supervision. Overall agreement between raters and scripted scores were low.

Gender Differences in Work-Based Assessment Scores and Narrative Comments After Direct Observation.

BACKGROUND: While some prior studies of work-based assessment (WBA) numeric ratings have not shown gender differences, they have been unable to account for the true performance of the resident or explore narrative differences by gender. OBJECTIVE: To explore gender differences in WBA ratings as well as narrative comments (when scripted performance was known). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of WBAs obtained from a randomized controlled trial of a longitudinal rater training intervention in 2018-2019. Participating faculty (n = 77) observed standardized resident-patient encounters and subsequently completed rater assessment forms (RAFs). SUBJECTS: Participating faculty in longitudinal rater training. MAIN MEASURES: Gender differences in mean entrustment ratings (4-point scale) were assessed with multivariable regression (adjusted for scripted performance, rater and resident demographics, and the interaction between study arm and time period [pre- versus post-intervention]). Using pre-specified natural language processing categories (masculine, feminine, agentic, and communal words), multivariable linear regression was used to determine associations of word use in the narrative comments with resident gender, race, and skill level, faculty demographics, and interaction between the study arm and the time period (pre- versus post-intervention). KEY RESULTS: Across 1527 RAFs, there were significant differences in entrustment ratings between women and men standardized residents (2.29 versus 2.54, respectively, p < 0.001) after correction for resident skill level. As compared to men, feminine terms were more common for comments of what the resident did poorly among women residents (ß 0.45, CI 0.12-0.78, p 0.01). This persisted despite adjusting for the faculty's entrustment ratings. There were no other significant linguistic differences by gender. CONCLUSIONS: Contrasting prior studies, we found entrustment rating differences in a simulated WBA which persisted after adjusting for the resident's scripted performance. There were also linguistic differences by gender after adjusting for entrustment ratings, with feminine terms being used more frequently in comments about women in some, but not all narrative comments.

Learner Assessment and Program Evaluation: Supporting Precision Education.

ABSTRACT: Precision education (PE) systematically leverages data and advanced analytics to inform educational interventions that, in turn, promote meaningful learner outcomes. PE does this by incorporating analytic results back into the education continuum through continuous feedback cycles. These data-informed sequences of planning, learning, assessing, and adjusting foster competence and adaptive expertise. PE cycles occur at individual (micro), program (meso), or system (macro) levels. This article focuses on program- and system-level PE.Data for PE come from a multitude of sources, including learner assessment and program evaluation. The authors describe the link between these data and the vital role evaluation plays in providing evidence of educational effectiveness. By including prior program evaluation research supporting this claim, the authors illustrate the link between training programs and patient outcomes. They also describe existing national reports providing feedback to programs and institutions, as well as 2 emerging, multiorganization program- and system-level PE efforts. The challenges encountered by those implementing PE and the continuing need to advance this work illuminate the necessity for increased cross-disciplinary collaborations and a national cross-organizational data-sharing effort.Finally, the authors propose practical approaches for funding a national initiative in PE as well as potential models for advancing the field of PE. Lessons learned from successes by others illustrate the promise of these recommendations.

The Association of Subspecialty and Sex with Industry Payments to Internal Medicine Physicians Who Recently Completed Training.

BACKGROUND: Financial relationships with drug and medical device companies may impact quality of care and academic research. However, little is known when and how these financial relationships develop among newly independent physicians who recently completed from residency or fellowship programs in internal medicine (IM). OBJECTIVE: To compare patterns of industry payments among IM graduates. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational cohort study. SUBJECTS: IM graduates from residency or fellowship programs between January 2015 and December 2019. MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed Open Payments reports made between July 2015 and June 2021 to recent graduates of U.S. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency and fellowship programs in IM. The primary outcome was general payments accepted by these physicians, stratified by procedural (i.e., critical care medicine/pulmonary medicine, cardiac/cardiovascular disease, and gastroenterology) and non-procedural (i.e., infectious disease, general internal medicine, and other specialties) subspecialties. The secondary outcomes included general payments stratified by sex and age at residency or fellowship training completion. KEY RESULTS: There were 41,669 IM physicians with a median age of 33.0 years. In the first 3 years after completion, the proportion of physicians accepting any general payments was 72.6%, 91.9%, and 86.8% in Critical Care Medicine/Pulmonary Medicine, Cardiac/Cardiovascular Disease, and Gastroenterology, compared to 56.1%, 52.6%, and 52.3% in Infectious Disease, General Internal Medicine, and Other Specialties (p<0.0001). After adjusting for confounding variables, the procedural group showed an increased hazard ratio (HR) for accepting any general payments and at least $5000 of general payments compared to the non-procedural group. The HRs of accepting any general payments in the procedural subspecialty were 2.26 (95% CI, 2.11-2.42) and 2.83 (95% CI, 2.70-2.97) in female and male physicians, respectively (p-value < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Industry financial relationships among newly independent physicians in IM exist immediately after completion of training and are influenced by subspecialty, sex, and age.

Intersectional Disparities in Emergency Medicine Residents' Performance Assessments by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex.

Importance: Previous studies have demonstrated sex-specific disparities in performance assessments among emergency medicine (EM) residents. However, less work has focused on intersectional disparities by ethnoracial identity and sex in resident performance assessments. Objective: To estimate intersectional sex-specific ethnoracial disparities in standardized EM resident assessments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones (Milestones) assessments to evaluate ratings for EM residents at 128 EM training programs in the US. Statistical analyses were conducted in June 2020 to January 2023. Exposure: Training and assessment environments in EM residency programs across comparison groups defined by ethnoracial identity (Asian, White, or groups underrepresented in medicine [URM], ie, African American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latine, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander) and sex (female/male). Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean Milestone scores (scale, 0-9) across 6 core competency domains: interpersonal and communications skills, medical knowledge, patient care, practice-based learning and improvement, professionalism, and system-based practice. Overall assessment scores were calculated as the mean of the 6 competency scores. Results: The study sample comprised 128 ACGME-accredited programs and 16 634 assessments for 2708 EM residents of which 1913 (70.6%) were in 3-year and 795 (29.4%) in 4-year programs. Most of the residents were White (n = 2012; 74.3%), followed by Asian (n = 477; 17.6%), Hispanic or Latine (n = 213; 7.9%), African American or Black (n = 160; 5.9%), American Indian or Alaska Native (n = 24; 0.9%), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (n = 4; 0.1%). Approximately 14.3% (n = 386) and 34.6% (n = 936) were of URM groups and female, respectively. Compared with White male residents, URM female residents in 3-year programs were rated increasingly lower in the medical knowledge (URM female score, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.77 to -0.17), patient care (-0.18; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.01), and practice-based learning and improvement (-0.37; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.09) domains by postgraduate year 3 year-end assessment; URM female residents in 4-year programs were also rated lower in all 6 competencies over the assessment period. Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective cohort study found that URM female residents were consistently rated lower than White male residents on Milestone assessments, findings that may reflect intersectional discrimination in physician competency evaluation. Eliminating sex-specific ethnoracial disparities in resident assessments may contribute to equitable health care by removing barriers to retention and promotion of underrepresented and minoritized trainees and facilitating diversity and representation among the emergency physician workforce.

The Urgency of Now: Rethinking and Improving Assessment Practices in Medical Education Programs.

Assessment is essential to professional development. Assessment provides the information needed to give feedback, support coaching and the creation of individualized learning plans, inform progress decisions, determine appropriate supervision levels, and, most importantly, help ensure patients and families receive high-quality, safe care in the training environment. While the introduction of competency-based medical education has catalyzed advances in assessment, much work remains to be done. First, becoming a physician (or other health professional) is primarily a developmental process, and assessment programs must be designed using a developmental and growth mindset. Second, medical education programs must have integrated programs of assessment that address the interconnected domains of implicit, explicit and structural bias. Third, improving programs of assessment will require a systems-thinking approach. In this paper, the authors first address these overarching issues as key principles that must be embraced so that training programs may optimize assessment to ensure all learners achieve desired medical education outcomes. The authors then explore specific needs in assessment and provide suggestions to improve assessment practices. This paper is by no means inclusive of all medical education assessment challenges or possible solutions. However, there is a wealth of current assessment research and practice that medical education programs can use to improve educational outcomes and help reduce the harmful effects of bias. The authors' goal is to help improve and guide innovation in assessment by catalyzing further conversations.

Association of Surgical Resident Competency Ratings With Patient Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Accurate assessment of clinical performance is essential to ensure graduating residents are competent for unsupervised practice. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones framework is the most widely used competency-based framework in the United States. However, the relationship between residents' milestones competency ratings and their subsequent early career clinical outcomes has not been established. It is important to examine the association between milestones competency ratings of U.S. general surgical residents and those surgeons' patient outcomes in early career practice. METHOD: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted using a sample of national Medicare claims for 23 common, high-risk inpatient general surgical procedures performed between July 1, 2015, and November 30, 2018 (n = 12,400 cases) by nonfellowship-trained U.S. general surgeons. Milestone ratings collected during those surgeons' last year of residency (n = 701 residents) were compared with their risk-adjusted rates of mortality, any complication, or severe complication within 30 days of index operation during their first 2 years of practice. RESULTS: There were no associations between mean milestone competency ratings of graduating general surgery residents and their subsequent early career patient outcomes, including any complication (23% proficient vs 22% not yet proficient; relative risk [RR], 0.97, [95% CI, 0.88-1.08]); severe complication (9% vs 9%, respectively; RR, 1.01, [95% CI, 0.86-1.19]); and mortality (5% vs 5%; RR, 1.07, [95% CI, 0.88-1.30]). Secondary analyses yielded no associations between patient outcomes and milestone ratings specific to technical performance, or between patient outcomes and composites of operative performance, professionalism, or leadership milestones ratings ( P ranged .32-.97). CONCLUSIONS: Milestone ratings of graduating general surgery residents were not associated with the patient outcomes of those surgeons when they performed common, higher-risk procedures in a Medicare population. Efforts to improve how milestones ratings are generated might strengthen their association with early career outcomes.

Faculty Perceptions of Frame of Reference Training to Improve Workplace-Based Assessment.

Background: Workplace-based assessment (WBA) is a key assessment strategy in competency-based medical education. However, its full potential has not been actualized secondary to concerns with reliability, validity, and accuracy. Frame of reference training (FORT), a rater training technique that helps assessors distinguish between learner performance levels, can improve the accuracy and reliability of WBA, but the effect size is variable. Understanding FORT benefits and challenges help improve this rater training technique. Objective: To explore faculty's perceptions of the benefits and challenges associated with FORT. Methods: Subjects were internal medicine and family medicine physicians (n=41) who participated in a rater training intervention in 2018 consisting of in-person FORT followed by asynchronous online spaced learning. We assessed participants' perceptions of FORT in post-workshop focus groups and an end-of-study survey. Focus groups and survey free text responses were coded using thematic analysis. Results: All subjects participated in 1 of 4 focus groups and completed the survey. Four benefits of FORT were identified: (1) opportunity to apply skills frameworks via deliberate practice; (2) demonstration of the importance of certain evidence-based clinical skills; (3) practice that improved the ability to discriminate between resident skill levels; and (4) highlighting the importance of direct observation and the dangers using proxy information in assessment. Challenges included time constraints and task repetitiveness. Conclusions: Participants believe that FORT training serves multiple purposes, including helping them distinguish between learner skill levels while demonstrating the impact of evidence-based clinical skills and the importance of direct observation.

The Use of Learning Analytics to Enable Detection of Underperforming Trainees: An Analysis of National Vascular Surgery Trainee ACGME Milestones Assessment Data.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate at-risk scores of semiannual Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestone ratings for vascular surgical trainees' final achievement of competency targets. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: ACGME Milestones assessments have been collected since 2015 for Vascular Surgery. It is unclear whether milestone ratings throughout training predict achievement of recommended performance targets upon graduation. METHODS: National ACGME Milestones data were utilized for analyses. All trainees completing 2-year vascular surgery fellowships in June 2018 and 5-year integrated vascular surgery residencies in June 2019 were included. A generalized estimating equations model was used to obtain at-risk scores for each of the 31 subcompetencies by semiannual review periods, to estimate the probability of trainees achieving the recommended graduation target based on their previous ratings. RESULTS: A total of 122 vascular surgery fellows (VSFs) (95.3%) and 52 integrated vascular surgery residents (IVSRs) (100%) were included. VSFs and IVSRs did not achieve level 4.0 competency targets at a rate of 1.6% to 25.4% across subcompetencies, which was not significantly different between the 2 groups for any of the subcompetencies ( P = 0.161-0.999). Trainees were found to be at greater risk of not achieving competency targets when lower milestone ratings were assigned, and at later time-points in training. At a milestone rating of 2.5, with 1 year remaining before graduation, the at-risk score for not achieving the target level 4.0 milestone ranged from 2.9% to 77.9% for VSFs and 33.3% to 75.0% for IVSRs. CONCLUSION: The ACGME Milestones provide early diagnostic and predictive information for vascular surgery trainees' achievement of competence at completion of training.

Can Rater Training Improve the Quality and Accuracy of Workplace-Based Assessment Narrative Comments and Entrustment Ratings? A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Prior research evaluating workplace-based assessment (WBA) rater training effectiveness has not measured improvement in narrative comment quality and accuracy, nor accuracy of prospective entrustment-supervision ratings. The purpose of this study was to determine whether rater training, using performance dimension and frame of reference training, could improve WBA narrative comment quality and accuracy. A secondary aim was to assess impact on entrustment rating accuracy. METHOD: This single-blind, multi-institution, randomized controlled trial of a multifaceted, longitudinal rater training intervention consisted of in-person training followed by asynchronous online spaced learning. In 2018, investigators randomized 94 internal medicine and family medicine physicians involved with resident education. Participants assessed 10 scripted standardized resident-patient videos at baseline and follow-up. Differences in holistic assessment of narrative comment accuracy and specificity, accuracy of individual scenario observations, and entrustment rating accuracy were evaluated with t tests. Linear regression assessed impact of participant demographics and baseline performance. RESULTS: Seventy-seven participants completed the study. At follow-up, the intervention group (n = 41), compared with the control group (n = 36), had higher scores for narrative holistic specificity (2.76 vs 2.31, P < .001, Cohen V = .25), accuracy (2.37 vs 2.06, P < .001, Cohen V = .20) and mean quantity of accurate (6.14 vs 4.33, P < .001), inaccurate (3.53 vs 2.41, P < .001), and overall observations (2.61 vs 1.92, P = .002, Cohen V = .47). In aggregate, the intervention group had more accurate entrustment ratings (58.1% vs 49.7%, P = .006, Phi = .30). Baseline performance was significantly associated with performance on final assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Quality and specificity of narrative comments improved with rater training; the effect was mitigated by inappropriate stringency. Training improved accuracy of prospective entrustment-supervision ratings, but the effect was more limited. Participants with lower baseline rating skill may benefit most from training.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Internal Medicine Residency Assessments.

Importance: Previous studies have demonstrated racial and ethnic inequities in medical student assessments, awards, and faculty promotions at academic medical centers. Few data exist about similar racial and ethnic disparities at the level of graduate medical education. Objective: To examine the association between race and ethnicity and performance assessments among a national cohort of internal medicine residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated assessments of performance for 9026 internal medicine residents from the graduating classes of 2016 and 2017 at Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited internal medicine residency programs in the US. Analyses were conducted between July 1, 2020, and June 31, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was midyear and year-end total ACGME Milestone scores for underrepresented in medicine (URiM [Hispanic only; non-Hispanic American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander only; or non-Hispanic Black/African American]) and Asian residents compared with White residents as determined by their Clinical Competency Committees and residency program directors. Differences in scores between Asian and URiM residents compared with White residents were also compared for each of the 6 competency domains as supportive outcomes. Results: The study cohort included 9026 residents from 305 internal medicine residency programs. Of these residents, 3994 (44.2%) were female, 3258 (36.1%) were Asian, 1216 (13.5%) were URiM, and 4552 (50.4%) were White. In the fully adjusted model, no difference was found in the initial midyear total Milestone scores between URiM and White residents, but there was a difference between Asian and White residents, which favored White residents (mean [SD] difference in scores for Asian residents: -1.27 [0.38]; P < .001). In the second year of training, White residents received increasingly higher scores relative to URiM and Asian residents. These racial disparities peaked in postgraduate year (PGY) 2 (mean [SD] difference in scores for URiM residents, -2.54 [0.38]; P < .001; mean [SD] difference in scores for Asian residents, -1.9 [0.27]; P < .001). By the final year 3 assessment, the gap between White and Asian and URiM residents' scores narrowed, and no racial or ethnic differences were found. Trends in racial and ethnic differences among the 6 competency domains mirrored total Milestone scores, with differences peaking in PGY2 and then decreasing in PGY3 such that parity in assessment was reached in all competency domains by the end of training. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, URiM and Asian internal medicine residents received lower ratings on performance assessments than their White peers during the first and second years of training, which may reflect racial bias in assessment. This disparity in assessment may limit opportunities for physicians from minoritized racial and ethnic groups and hinder physician workforce diversity.

Effects of COVID-19 on Residency and Fellowship Training: Results of a National Survey.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected every facet of American health care, including graduate medical education (GME). Prior studies show that COVID-19 resulted in reduced opportunities for elective surgeries, lower patient volumes, altered clinical rotations, increased reliance on telemedicine, and dependence on virtual didactic conferences. These studies, however, focused on individual specialties. Because the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) routinely collects information from all programs it has an obligation to use these data to inform the profession about important trends affecting GME. Objective: To describe how the pandemic influenced resident training across all specialty programs in areas of clinical experiences, telemedicine, and extended trainings. Methods: The ACGME validated a questionnaire to supplement the Annual Update reporting requirements of all accredited programs. The questionnaire was tested to ensure easy interpretation of instructions, question wording, response options, and to assess respondent burden. The questionnaire was administered through the Accreditation Data System, which is a password-protected online environment for communication between the ACGME and ACGME-accredited programs. Results: We received a response rate of 99.6% (11 290 of 12 420). Emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology programs experienced the most significant impact. Most programs reported reduced opportunities for in-person didactics and ambulatory continuity rotations. Hospital-based programs on the "frontline" of COVID-19 care relied least on telemedicine. Family medicine and internal medicine programs accounted for the greatest number of extended trainings. Conclusions: COVID-19 has affected GME training, but its consequences are unevenly distributed across program types and regions of the country.

Entrustment Unpacked: Aligning Purposes, Stakes, and Processes to Enhance Learner Assessment.

Educators use entrustment, a common framework in competency-based medical education, in multiple ways, including frontline assessment instruments, learner feedback tools, and group decision making within promotions or competence committees. Within these multiple contexts, entrustment decisions can vary in purpose (i.e., intended use), stakes (i.e., perceived risk or consequences), and process (i.e., how entrustment is rendered). Each of these characteristics can be conceptualized as having 2 distinct poles: (1) purpose has formative and summative, (2) stakes has low and high, and (3) process has ad hoc and structured. For each characteristic, entrustment decisions often do not fall squarely at one pole or the other, but rather lie somewhere along a spectrum. While distinct, these continua can, and sometimes should, influence one another, and can be manipulated to optimally integrate entrustment within a program of assessment. In this article, the authors describe each of these continua and depict how key alignments between them can help optimize value when using entrustment in programmatic assessment within competency-based medical education. As they think through these continua, the authors will begin and end with a case study to demonstrate the practical application as it might occur in the clinical learning environment.

The Dissolution of the Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination and the Duty of Medical Educators to Step Up the Effectiveness of Clinical Skills Assessment.

In this Invited Commentary, the authors explore the implications of the dissolution of the Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination (Step 2 CS) for medical student clinical skills assessment. The authors describe the need for medical educators (at both the undergraduate and graduate levels) to work collaboratively to improve medical student clinical skills assessment to assure the public that medical school graduates have the requisite skills to begin residency training. The authors outline 6 specific recommendations for how to capitalize on the discontinuation of Step 2 CS to improve clinical skills assessment: (1) defining national, end-of-clerkship, and transition-to-residency standards for required clinical skills and for levels of competence; (2) creating a national resource for standardized patient, augmented reality, and virtual reality assessments; (3) improving workplace-based assessment through local collaborations and national resources; (4) improving learner engagement in and coproduction of assessments; (5) requiring, as a new standard for accreditation, medical schools to establish and maintain competency committees; and (6) establishing a national registry of assessment data for research and evaluation. Together, these actions will help the medical education community earn the public's trust by enhancing the rigor of assessment to ensure the mastery of skills that are essential to providing safe, high-quality care for patients.

Competency-Based Assessment in Psychiatric Education: A Systems Approach.

Medical education programs are failing to meet the health needs of patients and communities. Misalignments exist on multiple levels, including content (what trainees learn), pedagogy (how trainees learn), and culture (why trainees learn). To address these challenges effectively, competency-based assessment (CBA) for psychiatric medical education must simultaneously produce life-long learners who can self-regulate their own growth and trustworthy processes that determine and accelerate readiness for independent practice. The key to effectively doing so is situating assessment within a carefully designed system with several, critical, interacting components: workplace-based assessment, ongoing faculty development, learning analytics, longitudinal coaching, and fit-for-purpose clinical competency committees.

Advancing Workplace-Based Assessment in Psychiatric Education: Key Design and Implementation Issues.

With the adoption of competency-based medical education, assessment has shifted from traditional classroom domains of knows and knows how to the workplace domain of doing. This workplace-based assessment has 2 purposes; assessment of learning (summative feedback) and the assessment for learning (formative feedback). What the trainee does becomes the basis for identifying growth edges and determining readiness for advancement and ultimately independent practice. High-quality workplace-based assessment programs require thoughtful choices about the framework of assessment, the tools themselves, the platforms used, and the contexts in which the assessments take place, with an emphasis on direct observation.

Longitudinal Milestone Assessment Extending Through Subspecialty Training: The Relationship Between ACGME Internal Medicine Residency Milestones and Subsequent Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship Milestones.

PURPOSE: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones were implemented across medical subspecialties in 2015. Although milestones were proposed as a longitudinal assessment tool potentially providing opportunities for early implementation of individualized fellowship learning plans, the association of subspecialty fellowship ratings with prior residency ratings remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the relationship between internal medicine (IM) residency milestones and pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship milestones. METHOD: A multicenter retrospective cohort analysis was conducted for all PCCM trainees in ACGME-accredited PCCM fellowship programs, 2017-2018, who had complete prior IM milestone ratings from 2014 to 2017. Only professionalism and interpersonal and communication skills (ICS) were included based on shared anchors between IM and PCCM milestones. Using a generalized estimating equations model, the association of PCCM milestones ≤ 2.5 during the first fellowship year with corresponding IM subcompetencies was assessed at each time point, nested by program. Statistical significance was determined using logistic regression. RESULTS: The study included 354 unique PCCM fellows. For ICS and professionalism subcompetencies, fellows with higher IM ratings were less likely to obtain PCCM ratings ≤ 2.5 during the first fellowship year. Each ICS subcompetency was significantly associated with future lapses in fellowship (ICS01: ß = -0.67, P = .003; ICS02: ß = -0.70, P = .001; ICS03: ß = -0.60, P = .004) at various residency time points. Similar associations were noted for PROF03 (ß = -0.57, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrated an association between IM milestone ratings and low milestone ratings during PCCM fellowship. IM trainees with low ratings in several professionalism and ICS subcompetencies were more likely to be rated ≤ 2.5 during the first PCCM fellowship year. This highlights a potential use of longitudinal milestones to target educational gaps at the beginning of PCCM fellowship.

The Transformational Path Ahead: Competency-Based Medical Education in Family Medicine.

Competency-based medical education (CBME) is an outcomes-based approach that has taken root in residency training nationally and internationally. CBME explicitly places the patient, family, and community at the center of training with the primary goals of concomitantly improving both educational and clinical outcomes. Family medicine, as the foundational primary care discipline, has always embraced the importance of linking training with health system needs and performance since its inception. While CBME is no longer a new concept, full implementation of this outcomes-based approach has been daunting and challenging. Gaps in the effectiveness, safety, equity, efficiency, timeliness, and patient/family centeredness of health and health care in the United States continue to be persistent and pernicious. These gaps summon family medicine and the entire graduate medical education system to take stock of its current state and to examine how more fully embracing an outcomes-based educational approach can help to close these gaps. This article provides a brief history of the CBME movement, and more importantly, its key underlying educational principles and science. I will explore the key inflection points of progress, including identifying core CBME components, introduction of competency Milestones, experimental pilots of time variable training, advancements in mastery-based learning, and advances in work-based assessment, within the context of family medicine. I will conclude with suggestions for accelerating the adoption and implementation of CBME within family medicine residency training.