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.

Objective postoperative pain assessment using incentive spirometry values: a prospective observational study.

Aim: Determine if incentive spirometry (IS) values correlate with postoperative pain control. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting & participants: A total of 100 patients undergoing major abdominal procedures at the University of North Carolina Medical Center. Interventions: Patients studied as a single cohort. All patients received thoracic epidural analgesia preoperatively. Outcome: Preoperative and daily postoperative numeric pain scores, subjective pain description and IS values were collected for all patients. Results: There was a strong correlation with IS values relative to baseline for both the numeric pain scores (p < 0.0001), postoperative day (p < 0.0001) and the subjective pain score (p < 0.0007). Conclusion: IS values are an objective surrogate data point for pain control after surgery, particularly when followed over time and compared with a preoperative baseline value.

Development of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination as a Component of Assessment for Initial Board Certification in Anesthesiology.

With its first administration of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate this type of assessment into its high-stakes certification examination system. The fundamental rationale for the ABA's introduction of the OSCE is to include an assessment that allows candidates for board certification to demonstrate what they actually "do" in domains relevant to clinical practice. Inherent in this rationale is that the OSCE will capture competencies not well assessed in the current written and oral examinations-competencies that will allow the ABA to judge whether a candidate meets the standards expected for board certification more properly. This special article describes the ABA's journey from initial conceptualization through first administration of the OSCE, including the format of the OSCE, the process for scenario development, the standardized patient program that supports OSCE administration, examiner training, scoring, and future assessment of reliability, validity, and impact of the OSCE. This information will be beneficial to both those involved in the initial certification process, such as residency graduate candidates and program directors, and others contemplating the use of high-stakes summative OSCE assessments.

Validity of Simulation-Based Assessment for Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestone Achievement.

INTRODUCTION: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires biannual evaluation of anesthesiology residents on 25 subcompetency milestones. Some milestone domains are particularly challenging to repeatedly and reliably observe during clinical care. Simulation-Based Milestones Assessment (SBMA) may help overcome these challenges. However, few studies have examined the external validation of simulation assessment scores (ie, the relationships between simulation-based assessment scores and other standard measures of ability) for milestones. This study analyzed whether SBMA scores (1) discriminate by postgraduate year, (2) improve over time, and (3) correlate with traditional measures of performance. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 55 residents' SBMA data from 30 scenarios for two academic years. Each scenario was evaluated for time-in-training discrimination. Scenarios were then analyzed for SBMA scoring trends over time, and SBMA scores were compared with residents' clinical evaluations. RESULTS: Twenty-four SBMA scenarios discriminated by postgraduate year. Repeated measure analysis of variance showed statistically significant between-session score improvements (F (3, 54) = 17.79, P < 0.001). Pearson correlation coefficients demonstrated moderate to strong correlation between SBMA and clinical evaluations: January 2015 r = 0.67, P < 0.01 (n = 27); May 2015 r = 0.43, P = 0.09 (n = 17); November 2015 r = 0.70, P < 0.01 (n = 24); and April 2016 r = 70, P < 0.01 (n = 27). CONCLUSIONS: The associations between SBMA scores and experience level, time-in-training, and clinical performance evaluations provide evidence that SBMA may be used as metrics of residents' Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestone competencies.

Defining Value-Based Care in Cardiac and Vascular Anesthesiology: The Past, Present, and Future of Perioperative Cardiovascular Care.

Health care reimbursement models are transitioning from volume-based to value-based models. Value-based models focus on patient outcomes both during the hospital admission and postdischarge. These models place emphasis on cost, quality of care, and coordination of multidisciplinary services. Perioperative physicians are challenged to evaluate traditional practices to ensure coordinated, cost-effective, and evidence-based care. With the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services planned introduction of bundled payments for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, cardiovascular anesthesiologists are financially responsible for postdischarge outcomes. In order to meet these patient outcomes, multidisciplinary care pathways must be designed, implemented, and sustained, a process that is challenging at best. This review (1) provides a historical perspective of health care reimbursement; (2) defines value as it pertains to quality, service, and cost; (3) reviews the history of value-based care for cardiac surgery; (4) describes the drive toward optimization for vascular surgery patients; and (5) discusses how programs like Enhanced Recovery After Surgery assist with the delivery of value-based care.