Assessing Pediatric Rheumatology Fellow Competence in the Milestone Era: Past, Present, and Future.

Starting in 2015, pediatric rheumatology fellowship training programs were required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to assess fellows' academic performance within 21 subcompetencies falling under six competency domains. Each subcompetency had four or five milestone levels describing developmental progression of knowledge and skill acquisition. Milestones were standardized across all pediatric subspecialties. As part of the Milestones 2.0 revision project, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education convened a workgroup in 2022 to write pediatric rheumatology-specific milestones. Using adult rheumatology's Milestones 2.0 as a starting point, the workgroup revised the patient care and medical knowledge subcompetencies and milestones to reflect requirements and nuances of pediatric rheumatology care. Milestones within four remaining competency domains (professionalism, interpersonal and communication skills, practice-based learning and improvement, and systems-based practice) were standardized across all pediatric subspecialties, and therefore not revised. The workgroup created a supplemental guide with explanations of the intent of each subcompetency, 25 in total, and examples for each milestone level. The new milestones are an important step forward for competency-based medical education in pediatric rheumatology. However, challenges remain. Milestone level assignment is meant to be informed by results of multiple assessment methods. The lack of pediatric rheumatology-specific assessment tools typically result in clinical competency committees determining trainee milestone levels without such collated results as the foundation of their assessments. Although further advances in pediatric rheumatology fellowship competency-based medical education are needed, Milestones 2.0 importantly establishes the first pediatric-specific rheumatology Milestones to assess fellow performance during training and help measure readiness for independent practice.

A Multicenter Curricular Intervention to Address Resident Knowledge and Perceptions of Personal Finance.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated internal medicine residents' confidence and knowledge of personal finance, perceptions of burnout, and relations between these issues before and after an educational intervention. METHODS: We surveyed internal medicine residents at two university-based training programs in 2018. We developed and implemented a curriculum at both sites, covering topics of budgeting, saving for retirement, investment options, and the costs of investing. Each site used the same content but different strategies for dissemination. One used a condensed-form lecture series (two 1-hour sessions) and the other used a microlecture series (four 30-minute sessions) series. Residents were resurveyed following the intervention for comparison. RESULTS: The preintervention survey response rate was 41.2% (122/296) and the postintervention response rate was 44.3% (120/271). Postintervention mean scores for personal finance knowledge improved for basic concepts (52.6% vs 39.4%, P < 0.001), mutual fund elements (30.8% vs 19.7%, P < 0.001), investment plans (68.5% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001), and overall knowledge (50.1% vs 36.1%, P < 0.001). A significantly smaller proportion of residents reported feelings of burnout following the intervention (23.3% vs 36.9%, P = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that residents want to learn about finances. Our brief educational intervention is a practical way to improve overall knowledge. Our intervention suggests that improving knowledge of finance may be associated with decreased feelings of burnout.

The Fellow's Perspective: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Fellowship Training and Job Appointment.

BACKGROUND: Fellows have been uniquely affected by the widespread changes in educational structure, mandatory limitations in elective procedural volume, and hiring freezes during the COVID-19 global pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: A voluntary and anonymous survey was distributed to all Graduate Medical Education fellows at a tertiary medical center querying perspectives on clinical and didactic training and job placement. RESULTS: A total of 47 of 121 fellows (39%) completed the survey. The majority were in a medical (43%) or surgical specialty (34%) followed by critical care (13%) and procedure-based (11%) fellowships. Approximately 59% of surveyed fellows felt their programs were providing a virtual curriculum that would train them just as well as the in-person curriculum. Twenty-eight (60%) fellows were in their final or only year of training. Of the 25 fellows who were seeking employment, 52% have experienced difficulty in finding a job due to hiring freezes and 40% have encountered challenges with job interview cancellations and changes to virtual interview formats. CONCLUSION: Almost half of surveyed fellows reported an educational deterioration due to COVID-19 and graduating fellows seeking employment felt hindered by both the virtual interview format and widespread hiring freeze. Fellows are both unique and vulnerable as they balance the solidification of clinical training with securing employment during these tumultuous and unprecedented times.

Unifying the Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery Fellowship Curriculum via Delphi Consensus.

BACKGROUND: Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) Fellowship training in the Americas consists of 3 distinctive routes with variable curricula: Surgical Oncology Fellowship via the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO), Abdominal Transplant Surgery Fellowship via the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS), and HPB Fellowship via the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA). Our objective was to establish a pan-American consensus among HPB surgeons, surgical oncologists, abdominal transplant surgeons, and general surgery residency program directors (GSPDs) on a core knowledge curriculum for HPB fellowship, and to identify topics appropriate for general surgery residency and subspecialty beyond HPB fellowship. STUDY DESIGN: A 3-round modified Delphi process was used. Baseline statements were developed by the Education and Training Committee of the AHPBA, in collaboration with representatives of the SSO, ASTS, and GSPDs. The expert panel, consisting of members of the 3 societies together with GSPDs, rated the statements on a 5-point Likert scale and suggested editing or adding new statements. A statement was included in the final curriculum when Cronbach's alpha value was ≥ 0.8 and ≥ 80% of the panel agreed on inclusion. RESULTS: The response rate was 100% for the first round, and 98% for the second and third rounds. Eighty-nine of 138 proposed statements were included in the final HPB fellowship curriculum. Curricula for general surgery residency and subspecialty beyond HPB fellowship included 50 and 29 statements, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A multinational consensus on core knowledge for an HPB fellowship curriculum was achieved via the modified Delphi method. This core curriculum may be used to standardize HPB fellowship training across different pathways in the Americas.

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.

How Long Will It Take to Reach Gender Parity in Orthopaedic Surgery in the United States? An Analysis of the National Provider Identifier Registry.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have evaluated how the proportion of women in orthopaedic surgery has changed over time, these analyses have been limited by small sample sizes, have primarily used data on residents, and have not included information on growth across subspecialties and geographic regions. QUESTION/PURPOSE: We used the National Provider Identifier registry to ask: How have the (1) overall, (2) regional, and (3) subspecialty percentages of women among all currently practicing orthopaedic providers changed over time in the United States? METHODS: The National Provider Identifier Registry of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was queried for all active providers with taxonomy codes pertaining to orthopaedic subspecialties as of April 2020. Women orthopaedic surgeons were identified among all physicians with subspecialty taxonomy codes. As all providers are required to provide a gender when applying for an NPI, all providers with queried taxonomy codes additionally had gender classification. Our final cohort consisted of 31,296 practicing orthopaedic surgeons, of whom 8% (2363 of 31,296) were women. A total of 11,714 (37%) surgeons possessed taxonomy codes corresponding with a specific orthopaedic subspecialty. A univariate linear regression analysis was used to analyze trends in the annual proportions of women who are active orthopaedic surgeons based on NPI enumeration dates. Specifically, annual proportions were defined using cross-sections of the NPI registry on December 31 of each year. Linear regression was similarly used to evaluate changes in the annual proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons across United States Census regions and divisions, as well as orthopaedic subspecialties. The national growth rate was then projected forward to determine the year at which the representation of women orthopaedic surgeons would achieve parity with the proportion of all women physicians (36.3% or 340,018 of 936,254, as determined by the 2019 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile) and the proportion of all women in the United States (50.8% or 166,650,550 of 328,239,523 as determined by 2019 American Community Survey from the United States Census Bureau). Gender parity projections along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Holt-Winters forecasting algorithm. The proportions of women physicians and women in the United States were assumed to remain fixed at 2019 values of 36.3% and 50.8%, respectively. RESULTS: There was a national increase in the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons between 2010 and 2019 (r2 = 0.98; p < 0.001) at a compound annual growth rate of 2%. Specifically, the national proportion of orthopaedic surgeons who were women increased from 6% (1670 of 26,186) to 8% (2350 of 30,647). Assuming constant growth at this rate following 2019, the time to achieve gender parity with the overall medical profession (that is, to achieve 36.3% women in orthopaedic surgery) is projected to be 217 years, or by the year 2236. Likewise, the time to achieve gender parity with the overall US population (which is 50.8% women) is projected to be 326 years, or by the year 2354. During our study period, there were increases in the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons across US Census regions. The lowest growth was in the West (17%) and the South (19%). Similar growth was demonstrated across census divisions. In each orthopaedic subspecialty, we found increases in the proportion of women surgeons throughout the study period. Adult reconstruction (0%) and spine surgery (1%) had the lowest growth. CONCLUSION: We calculate that at the current rate of change, it will take more than 200 years for orthopaedic surgery to achieve gender parity with the overall medical profession. Although some regions and subspecialties have grown at comparably higher rates, collectively, there has been minimal growth across all domains. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given this meager growth, we believe that substantive changes must be made across all levels of orthopaedic education and leadership to steepen the current curve. These include mandating that all medical school curricula include dedicated exposure to orthopaedic surgery to increase the number of women coming through the orthopaedic pipeline. Additionally, we believe the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and individual programs should require specific benchmarks for the proportion of orthopaedic faculty and fellowship program directors, as well as for the proportion of incoming trainees, who are women. Furthermore, we believe there should be a national effort led by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and orthopaedic subspecialty societies to foster the academic development of women in orthopaedic surgery while recruiting more women into leadership positions. Future analyses should evaluate the efficacy of diversity efforts among other surgical specialties that have achieved or made greater strides toward gender parity, as well as how these programs can be implemented into orthopaedic surgery.

Training in endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: a critical assessment of the broad scenario of training programs and models.

Introduction: Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography (ERCP) applications are rapidly evolving toward increasingly complex therapeutic approaches alongside with technological innovations. There are no globally agreed indications on the ERCP training path, which often requires too much time and does not always guarantee adequate skills.Areas covered: Frequency and difficulty of execution are the main objective criteria on which to draw up a training program: novel trainees should approach ERCP first through the simplest and most frequent procedures. An extensive use of training models would reduce the patient's performer-related risks. Amongst a wide variety of models, mechanical simulators have received large approval. In fact, they can be best-suited to each trainee's learning curve thanks to their precision and safety and by virtue of the unlimited repeatability of their use. However, more solid evidences are still needed.Expert opinion: Hands-on ERCP training should systematically employ mechanical simulators at least in the early stages of the learning process. An implementation of these models through sensors that objectively detect abnormalities in the movements would provide detailed feedbacks and deeper awareness. Simulators might also be useful for expert endoscopists to refine their skills. Rapid prototyping and 3D printing might be the way to create customized training models for successful training programs.

Needs assessment of current palliative care education in U.S. hematology/oncology fellowship programs.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) education for fellows in hematology/oncology (H/O) training programs is widely accepted, but no studies to date have assessed PC education practices and values among program leadership. METHODS: Program Directors and Associate Program Directors of active H/O fellowship programs in the U.S.A. were surveyed. RESULTS: Of 149 programs contacted, 84 completed the survey (56% response rate), of which 100% offered some form of PC education. The most frequently utilized methods of PC education were didactic lectures/conferences (93%), required PC rotations (68%), and simulation/role-playing (42%). Required PC rotations were ranked highest, and formal didactic seminars/conferences were ranked fifth in terms of perceived effectiveness. The majority felt either somewhat (60%) or extremely satisfied (30%) with the PC education at their program. Among specific PC domains, communication ranked highest, addressing spiritual distress ranked lowest, and care for the imminently dying ranked second lowest in importance and competency. Solid tumor oncologists reported more personal comfort with pain management (p = 0.042), non-pain symptom management (p = 0.014), ethical/legal issues (p = 0.029), reported their fellows were less competent in pain assessment/management (p = 0.006), and communication (p = 0.011), and were more satisfied with their program's PC education (p = 0.035) as compared with hematologists. CONCLUSIONS: Significant disparities exist between those modalities rated most effective for PC education and those currently in use. Clinical orientation of program leadership can affect both personal comfort with PC skills and estimations of PC curriculum effectiveness and fellows' competency. H/O fellowship programs would benefit from greater standardization and prioritization of active PC education modalities and content.

Beyond a Hashtag: Strategies to Move Toward a More Inclusive Physiatry Workforce.

ABSTRACT: The field of physical medicine and rehabilitation should strive for a physician workforce that is ethnically/racially, sex, and ability diverse. Considering the recent realities of disparities in health outcomes related to COVID-19 and in racial injustice in the United States, we are called to be champions for antiracism and equity. The specialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation should be the leaders in fostering a culture of inclusion and pay special attention to the population of applicants who are underrepresented in medicine. The specialty needs tools to start addressing these disparities. This article aims to provide strategic and intentional evidence-based recommendations for programs to follow. Holistic review, implicit bias training, structured interviews, and targeted outreach for those underrepresented in medicine are some of the tools that will help students enter and become successful in our specialty. Furthermore, this article provides novel guidance and considerations for virtual interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A modern appraisal of current vascular surgery education.

OBJECTIVE: Although general program requirements and curriculum content outlines are provided by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Association for Program Directors in Vascular Surgery, and Vascular Surgery Board of the American Board of Surgery, there is no single format for delivery of this content. The delivery of these defined educational components is, thus, likely to differ from site to site. The curriculum committee of the Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery was tasked with formalizing the content of the Vascular Surgery Surgical Council on Resident Education curriculum modules, and, therefore, we sought to appraise the current status of vascular educational programs in U.S. training programs before its implementation. METHODS: Program directors (PDs) of 112 U.S. vascular surgery residency and fellowship training programs were contacted via email and asked to participate in an anonymous electronic survey. This survey evaluated the educational components of individual programs, including vascular specific conferences, use of other training modalities, and determination of who was involved in the creation of these programs. RESULTS: Of the 112 PDs offered the survey, 80 (71%) responded. Most (42 of 80; 53%) have both an integrated vascular residency and a fellowship with the remaining being solely fellowship (31 of 80; 39%) or integrated residencies (7 of 80; 9%). The majority (79 of 81; 98%) of programs hold at least one vascular conference per week, with 75% (60 of 81) holding more than one each week. The total time spent in conference averaged 2.6 hours/wk, and the most common educational components of the weekly conferences were review of upcoming (48 of 79, 61%) or recently completed surgical cases (30 of 79; 38%), lectures on vascular disease processes (40 of 79; 51%), and review of book chapters from vascular surgery textbooks (27 of 78; 35%). PDs are responsible for creating the schedule at 50% (39 of 78) of the programs with most remaining programs relying on trainees (18 of 78; 23%) and assistant PDs (17 of 78; 22%). Vascular trainees present the majority of material at most programs' conferences (64 of 77; 83%). The majority of PDs feel that trainees should independently study 4 hours or more per week (51 of 79; 65%), but only 25% (20 of 79) believe that trainees actually spend this amount of time studying (P = .0001). Only 13 of 80 (16%) programs currently use a preformatted standardized vascular curriculum, but 64 of 80 (80%) believe that there is a need for the creation of this product and 72 of 80 (90%) would most likely use it. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant variation in vascular surgery educational programs with considerable dependence on trainees to create the curriculum. The majority of PDs in vascular surgery support the creation of a standardized vascular curriculum and would use it if made.

Factors Associated With Family Medicine and Internal Medicine First-Year Residents' Ambulatory Care Training Time.

PURPOSE: Despite the importance of training in ambulatory care settings for residents to acquire important competencies, little is known about the organizational and environmental factors influencing the relative amount of time primary care residents train in ambulatory care during residency. The authors examined factors associated with postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) residents' ambulatory care training time in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited primary care programs. METHOD: U.S.-accredited family medicine (FM) and internal medicine (IM) programs' 2016-2017 National Graduate Medical Education (GME) Census data from 895 programs within 550 sponsoring institutions (representing 13,077 PGY-1s) were linked to the 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Cost Reports and 2015-2016 Area Health Resource File. Multilevel regression models examined the association of GME program characteristics, sponsoring institution characteristics, geography, and environmental factors with PGY-1 residents' percentage of time spent in ambulatory care. RESULTS: PGY-1 mean (standard deviation, SD) percent time spent in ambulatory care was 25.4% (SD, 0.4) for both FM and IM programs. In adjusted analyses (% increase [standard error, SE]), larger faculty size (0.03% [SE, 0.01], P < .001), sponsoring institution's receipt of Teaching Health Center (THC) funding (6.6% (SE, 2.7), P < .01), and accreditation warnings (4.8% [SE, 2.5], P < .05) were associated with a greater proportion of PGY-1 time spent in ambulatory care. Programs caring for higher proportions of Medicare beneficiaries spent relatively less time in ambulatory care (< 0.5% [SE, 0.2], P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory care time for PGY-1s varies among ACGME-accredited primary care residency programs due to the complex context and factors primary care GME programs operate under. Larger ACGME-accredited FM and IM programs and those receiving federal THC GME funding had relatively more PGY-1 time spent in ambulatory care settings. These findings inform policies to increase resident exposure in ambulatory care, potentially improving learning, competency achievement, and primary care access.

Does Educational Handover Influence Subsequent Assessment?

PURPOSE: Educational handover (i.e., providing information about learners' past performance) is controversial. Proponents argue handover could help tailor learning opportunities. Opponents fear it could bias subsequent assessments and lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. This study examined whether raters provided with reports describing learners' minor weaknesses would generate different assessment scores or narrative comments than those who did not receive such reports. METHOD: In this 2018 mixed-methods, randomized, controlled, experimental study, clinical supervisors from 5 postgraduate (residency) programs were randomized into 3 groups receiving no educational handover (control), educational handover describing weaknesses in medical expertise, and educational handover describing weaknesses in communication. All participants watched the same videos of 2 simulated resident-patient encounters and assessed performance using a shortened mini-clinical evaluation exercise form. The authors compared mean scores, percentages of negative comments, comments focusing on medical expertise, and comments focusing on communication across experimental groups using analyses of variance. They examined potential moderating effects of supervisor experience, gender, and mindsets (fixed vs growth). RESULTS: Seventy-two supervisors participated. There was no effect of handover report on assessment scores (F(2, 69) = 0.31, P = .74) or percentage of negative comments (F(2, 60) = 0.33, P = .72). Participants who received a report indicating weaknesses in communication generated a higher percentage of comments on communication than the control group (63% vs 50%, P = .03). Participants who received a report indicating weaknesses in medical expertise generated a similar percentage of comments on expertise compared to the controls (46% vs 47%, P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial empirical data about the effects of educational handover and suggests it can-in some circumstances-lead to more targeted feedback without influencing scores. Further studies are required to examine the influence of reports for a variety of performance levels, areas of weakness, and learners.

Improving the Assessment of Resident Competency: Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Milestones 2.0.

ABSTRACT: In 2015, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education published the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Milestones 1.0 as part of the Next Accreditation System. This was the culmination of more than 20 yrs of work on the part of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to improve graduate medical education competency assessments. The six core competencies were patient care, medical knowledge, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, professionalism, and interpersonal and communication skills. While providing a good foundation for resident assessment, the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Milestones 1.0 was not without faults. With input from program directors, national organizations, and the public, the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Milestones 2.0 strives to further advance resident assessment, providing improvements through the integration of the harmonized Milestones and the addition of a supplemental guide.

Chinese doctors' views on workplace-based assessment: trainee and supervisor perspectives of the mini-CEX.

Purpose: This study investigated whether the mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) has been successfully integrated into the Chinese context, following its introduction as part of the national general training programme. Materials and methods: Online questionnaires (N = 91) and interviews (N = 22) were conducted with Year 1 trainee doctors and clinical supervisors at a cancer hospital in China to explore users' experiences, attitudes and opinions of the mini-CEX. Results" Trainees were more likely than supervisors to report understanding the purpose of the mini-CEX and agree that it encouraged reflection and helped improve overall performance. Both trainees and supervisors felt that it provided a framework for learning, that it was useful in identifying underperformance, and that it informed learning progression. Groups were equally positive about the commitment of their counterpart in the process and valued the focus on detailed feedback. It was perceived as cultivating the learner-teacher relationship. Overall, both groups felt they 'bought in' to using the mini-CEX. However, concerns were raised about subjectivity of ratings and lack of benchmarking with expected standards of care. Conclusions: Chinese trainees and supervisors generally perceived the mini-CEX as an acceptable and valuable medical training tool, although both groups suggested enhancements to improve its efficacy.