Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestone Training Ratings and Surgeons' Early Outcomes.

Importance: National data on the development of competence during training have been reported using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones system. It is now possible to consider longitudinal analyses that link Milestone ratings during training to patient outcomes data of recent graduates. Objective: To evaluate the association of in-training ACGME Milestone ratings in a surgical specialty with subsequent complication rates following a commonly performed operation, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Design, Setting, and Participants: This study of patient outcomes followed EVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry (4213 admissions from 208 hospitals treated by 327 surgeons). All surgeons included in this study graduated from ACGME-accredited training programs from 2015 through 2019 and had Milestone ratings 6 months prior to graduation. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2021, through September 15, 2023. Because Milestone ratings can vary with program, they were corrected for program effect using a deviation score from the program mean. Exposure: Milestone ratings assigned to individual trainees 6 months prior to graduation, based on judgments of surgical competence. Main Outcomes and Measures: Surgical complications following EVAR for patients treated by recent graduates during the index hospitalization, obtained using the nationwide Society for Vascular Surgery Patient Safety Organization's VQI registry, which includes 929 participating centers in 49 US states. Results: The study included outcomes for 4213 patients (mean [SD] age, 73.25 [8.74] years; 3379 male participants [80.2%]). Postoperative complications included 9.5% major (400 of 4213 cases) and 30.2% minor (1274 of 4213 cases) complications. After adjusting for patient risk factors and site of training, a significant association was identified between individual Milestone ratings of surgical trainees and major complications in early surgical practice in programs with lower mean Milestone ratings (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% CI; 0.27-0.95). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, Milestone assessments of surgical trainees were associated with subsequent clinical outcomes in their early career. Although these findings represent one surgical specialty, they suggest Milestone ratings can be used in any specialty to identify trainees at risk for future adverse patient outcomes when applying the same theory and methodology. Milestones data should inform data-driven educational interventions and trainee remediation to optimize future patient outcomes.

Consensus-derived Recommended Skills for Transition to Residency Courses.

PURPOSE: Transition to residency (TTR) courses facilitate the medical student-residency transition and are an integral part of senior medical student training. The authors established a common set of skills for TTR courses and an expected level of entrustment students should demonstrate in each skill on TTR course completion. METHOD: A modified Delphi approach was used with 3 survey iterations between 2020 and 2022 to establish skills to be included in a TTR course. Nine TTR experts suggested general candidate skills and conducted a literature search to ensure no vital skills were missed. A stakeholder panel was solicited from email lists of TTR educators, residency program directors, and residents at the panelists' institutions. Consensus was defined as more than 75% of participants selecting a positive inclusion response. An entrustment questionnaire asked panelists to assign a level of expected entrustment to each skill, with 1 indicating observation only and 6 indicating perform independently. RESULTS: The stakeholder panel initially consisted of 118 respondents with representation across educational contexts and clinical specialties. Response rates were 54% in iteration 2, 42% in iteration 3, and 33% on the entrustment questionnaire. After 3 iterations, 54 skills met consensus and were consolidated into 37 final skills categorized into 18 clinical skills (e.g., assessment and management of inpatient concerns), 14 communication skills (e.g., delivering serious news or having difficult conversations), 4 personal and professional skills (e.g., prioritization of clinical tasks), and 1 procedural skill (mask ventilation). Median entrustment levels were reported for all skills, with 19 skills having a level of expected entrustment of 4 (perform independently and have all findings double-checked). CONCLUSIONS: These consensus skills can serve as the foundation of a standardized national TTR curriculum framework. Entrustment guidance may help educational leaders optimize training and allocation of resources for TTR curriculum development and implementation.

Data sharing and big data in health professions education: Ottawa consensus statement and recommendations for scholarship.

Changes in digital technology, increasing volume of data collection, and advances in methods have the potential to unleash the value of big data generated through the education of health professionals. Coupled with this potential are legitimate concerns about how data can be used or misused in ways that limit autonomy, equity, or harm stakeholders. This consensus statement is intended to address these issues by foregrounding the ethical imperatives for engaging with big data as well as the potential risks and challenges. Recognizing the wide and ever evolving scope of big data scholarship, we focus on foundational issues for framing and engaging in research. We ground our recommendations in the context of big data created through data sharing across and within the stages of the continuum of the education and training of health professionals. Ultimately, the goal of this statement is to support a culture of trust and quality for big data research to deliver on its promises for health professions education (HPE) and the health of society. Based on expert consensus and review of the literature, we report 19 recommendations in (1) framing scholarship and research through research, (2) considering unique ethical practices, (3) governance of data sharing collaborations that engage stakeholders, (4) data sharing processes best practices, (5) the importance of knowledge translation, and (6) advancing the quality of scholarship through multidisciplinary collaboration. The recommendations were modified and refined based on feedback from the 2022 Ottawa Conference attendees and subsequent public engagement. Adoption of these recommendations can help HPE scholars share data ethically and engage in high impact big data scholarship, which in turn can help the field meet the ultimate goal: high-quality education that leads to high-quality healthcare.

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.

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.

How a Team Effectiveness Approach to Health Systems Science Can Illuminate Undergraduate Medical Education Outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Health care delivery requires physicians to operate in teams to successfully navigate complexity in caring for patients and communities. The importance of training physicians early in core concepts of working in teams (i.e., "teaming") has long been established. Over the past decade, however, little evidence of team effectiveness training for medical students has been available. The recent introduction of health systems science as a third pillar of medical education provides an opportunity to teach and prepare students to work in teams and achieve related core competencies across the medical education continuum and health care delivery settings. Although educators and health care system leaders have emphasized the teaching and learning of team-based care, conceptual models and evidence that inform effective teaming within all aspects of undergraduate medical education (including classroom, clinical, and community settings) are needed to advance the science regarding learning and working in teams. Anchoring teaming through the core foundational theory of team effectiveness and its operational components could catalyze the empirical study of medical student teams, uncover modifiable factors that lead to the evidence for improved student learning, and improve the link among competency-based assessments between undergraduate medical education and graduate medical education. In this article, authors articulate several implications for medical schools through 5 conceptual areas: admissions, the design and teaching of team effectiveness in health systems science curricula, the related competency-based assessments, and course and program evaluations. The authors then discuss the relevance of the measurable components and intended outcomes to team effectiveness in undergraduate medical education as critical to successfully prepare students for teaming in clerkships and eventually residency and clinical practice.

Systems-Based Practice 20 Years On: Navigating the System for Better Care.

ABSTRACT: Systems-based practice (SBP) was introduced as 1 of 6 core competencies in 1999 because of its recognized importance in the quality and safety of health care provided to patients. Nearly 25 years later, faculty and learners continue to struggle with understanding and implementing this essential competency, thus hindering the medical education community's ability to most effectively teach and learn this important competency.Milestones were first introduced in 2013 as one effort to support implementation of the general competencies. However, each specialty developed its milestones independently, leading to substantial heterogeneity in the narrative descriptions of competencies including SBP. The process to create Milestones 2.0, and more specifically, the Harmonized Milestones, took this experience into account and endeavored to create a shared language for SBP across all specialties and subspecialties. The 3 subcompetencies in SBP are now patient safety and quality improvement, systems navigation for patient-centered care (coordination of care, transitions of care, local population health), and physician's role in health care systems (components of the system, costs and resources, transitions to practice). Milestones 2.0 are also now supported by new supplemental guides that provide specific real-world examples to help learners and faculty put SBP into the context of the complex health care environment.While substantially more resources and tools are now available to aid faculty and to serve as a guide for residents and fellows, much work to effectively implement SBP remains. This commentary will explore the evolutionary history of SBP, the challenges facing implementation, and suggestions for how programs can use the new milestone resources for SBP. The academic medicine community must work together to advance this competency as an essential part of professional development.

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.

Breaking Down Silos Between Medical Education and Health Systems: Creating an Integrated Multilevel Data Model to Advance the Systems-Based Practice Competency.

ABSTRACT: The complexity of improving health in the United States and the rising call for outcomes-based physician training present unique challenges and opportunities for both graduate medical education (GME) and health systems. GME programs have been particularly challenged to implement systems-based practice (SBP) as a core physician competency and educational outcome. Disparate definitions and educational approaches to SBP, as well as limited understanding of the complex interactions between GME trainees, programs, and their health system settings, contribute to current suboptimal educational outcomes elated to SBP. To advance SBP competence at individual, program, and institutional levels, the authors present the rationale for an integrated multilevel systems approach to assess and evaluate SBP, propose a conceptual multilevel data model that integrates health system and educational SBP performance, and explore the opportunities and challenges of using multilevel data to promote an empirically driven approach to residency education. The development, study, and adoption of multilevel analytic approaches to GME are imperative to the successful operationalization of SBP and thereby imperative to GME's social accountability in meeting societal needs for improved health. The authors call for the continued collaboration of national leaders toward producing integrated and multilevel datasets that link health systems and their GME-sponsoring institutions to evolve SBP.

The Association of ACGME Milestones With Performance on American Board of Surgery Assessments: A National Investigation of Surgical Trainees.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between, and predictive utility of, milestone ratings and subsequent American Board of Surgery (ABS) vascular surgery in-training examination (VSITE), vascular qualifying examination (VQE), and vascular certifying examination (VCE) performance in a national cohort of vascular surgery trainees. BACKGROUND: Specialty board certification is an important indicator of physician competence. However, predicting future board certification examination performance during training continues to be challenging. METHODS: This is a national longitudinal cohort study examining relational and predictive associations between Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestone ratings and performance on VSITE, VQE, and VCE for all vascular surgery trainees from 2015 to 2021. Predictive associations between milestone ratings and VSITE were conducted using cross-classified random-effects regression. Cross-classified random-effects logistic regression was used to identify predictive associations between milestone ratings and VQE and VCE. RESULTS: Milestone ratings were obtained for all residents and fellows(n=1,118) from 164 programs during the study period (from July 2015 to June 2021), including 145,959 total trainee assessments. Medical knowledge (MK) and patient care (PC) milestone ratings were strongly predictive of VSITE performance across all postgraduate years (PGYs) of training, with MK ratings demonstrating a slightly stronger predictive association overall (MK coefficient 17.26 to 35.76, ß = 0.15 to 0.23). All core competency ratings were predictive of VSITE performance in PGYs 4 and 5. PGY 5 MK was highly predictive of VQE performance [OR 4.73, (95% CI, 3.87-5.78), P <0.001]. PC subcompetencies were also highly predictive of VQE performance in the final year of training [OR 4.14, (95% CI, 3.17-5.41), P <0.001]. All other competencies were also significantly predictive of first-attempt VQE pass with ORs of 1.53 and higher. PGY 4 ICS ratings [OR 4.0, (95% CI, 3.06-5.21), P <0.001] emerged as the strongest predictor of VCE first-attempt pass. Again, all subcompetency ratings remained significant predictors of first-attempt pass on CE with ORs of 1.48 and higher. CONCLUSIONS: ACGME Milestone ratings are highly predictive of future VSITE performance, and first-attempt pass achievement on VQE and VCE in a national cohort of surgical trainees.

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.

Competency-based medical education: The spark to ignite healthcare's escape fire.

High-value care is what patients deserve and what healthcare professionals should deliver. However, it is not what happens much of the time. Quality improvement master Dr. Don Berwick argued more than two decades ago that American healthcare needs an escape fire, which is a new way of seeing and acting in a crisis situation. While coined in the U.S. context, the analogy applies in other Western healthcare contexts as well. Therefore, in this paper, the authors revisit Berwick's analogy, arguing that medical education can, and should, provide the spark for such an escape fire across the globe. They assert that medical education can achieve this by fully embracing competency-based medical education (CBME) as a way to place medicine's focus on the patient. CBME targets training outcomes that prepare graduates to optimize patient care. The authors use the escape fire analogy to argue that medical educators must drop long-held approaches and tools; treat CBME implementation as an adaptive challenge rather than a technical fix; demand genuine, rich discussions and engagement about the path forward; and, above all, center the patient in all they do.

Transition to Residency: National Study of Factors Contributing to Variability in Learner Milestones Ratings in Emergency Medicine and Family Medicine.

PURPOSE: The developmental trajectory of learning during residency may be attributed to multiple factors, including variation in individual trainee performance, program-level factors, graduating medical school effects, and the learning environment. Understanding the relationship between medical school and learner performance during residency is important in prioritizing undergraduate curricular strategies and educational approaches for effective transition to residency and postgraduate training. This study explores factors contributing to longitudinal and developmental variability in resident Milestones ratings, focusing on variability due to graduating medical school, training program, and learners using national cohort data from emergency medicine (EM) and family medicine (FM). METHOD: Data from programs with residents entering training in July 2016 were used (EM: n=1,645 residents, 178 residency programs; FM: n=3,997 residents, 487 residency programs). Descriptive statistics were used to examine data trends. Cross-classified mixed-effects regression were used to decompose variance components in Milestones ratings. RESULTS: During postgraduate year (PGY)-1, graduating medical school accounted for 5% and 6% of the variability in Milestones ratings, decreasing to 2% and 5% by PGY-3 for EM and FM, respectively. Residency program accounted for substantial variability during PGY-1 (EM=70%, FM=53%) but decreased during PGY-3 (EM=62%, FM=44%), with greater variability across training period in patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), and systems-based practice (SBP). Learner variance increased significantly between PGY-1 (EM=23%, FM=34%) and PGY-3 (EM=34%, FM=44%), with greater variability in practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI), professionalism (PROF), and interpersonal communication skills (ICS). CONCLUSIONS: The greatest variance in Milestone ratings can be attributed to the residency program and to a lesser degree, learners, and medical school. The dynamic impact of program-level factors on learners shifts during the first year and across the duration of residency training, highlighting the influence of curricular, instructional, and programmatic factors on resident performance throughout residency.

Industry Payments Received by Residents During Training.

Importance: Those responsible for medical education-specialties, sponsoring institutions, and program directors (PD)-are independently associated with the professional identity formation of the trainees with respect to potential conflicts of interest. Objective: To identify the relative degree to which factors in the training environment are associated with resident acceptance of payments from pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional, retrospective study of residents enrolled in the 3 largest primary-care specialties (internal medicine [IM], family medicine [FM], obstetrics and gynecology [OBGYN]) and 3 largest surgical disciplines (general surgery [GS], orthopedic surgery, and urology) during academic year 2020 to 2021. All analyses were conducted January through August 2023. Exposures: Specialty, sponsoring institutions' ownership (nonprofit, for-profit, federal government, local government, or state government), and the number of payments PDs accepted. Main outcomes and measures: Modified Poisson regression assessed the relative risk of ownership, specialty, and PD behavior on residents' acceptance of industry payments as recorded in the Open Payments Program (OPP) database. Results: In total, there were 124 715 residents in all training programs during 2020 to 2021, 12% of whom received payments totaling $6.4 million. There were 65 992 residents in training during 2020 to 2021 in the 6 specialties evaluated in this study, with 4438 in orthopedics, 1779 in urology, 9177 in GS, 5819 in OBGYN, 14 493 in FM, and 30 286 in IM. OPP records $3.9 million in payments to the 8750 residents (13.4%) who received at least 1 industry payment. The record of all payments to residents in OPP totals $6.4 million. Compared with residents in federal sponsoring institutions, those affiliated with for-profit institutions were 3.50 (95% CI, 2.32-5.28) times more likely to accept industry payments, while those affiliated with nonprofit organizations were 2.00 (95% CI, 1.36-2.93) times more likely to accept payments. Compared with IM, residents in each of the following specialties have an elevated risk of accepting payments: orthopedics, 3.21 (95% CI, 2.73-3.77) times; urology, 2.95 (95% CI, 2.44-3.56) times; GS, 1.21 (95% CI, 1.00-1.45) times; OBGYN, 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05-1.62) times. The difference in the risk of accepting a payment between FM and IM residents was not statistically significant. The number of payments PDs accepted slightly elevated the risk of residents to accept a payment by 1.01 (95% CI, 1.01-1.01). Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional, retrospective study, receipt of industry payments by residents was associated with specialty, institutional control, and PD behavior.

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.

Gender Bias and Ophthalmology Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones Evaluations.

Importance: Women remain underrepresented in ophthalmology and gender-based disparities exist in salary, grant receipt, publication rates, and surgical volume throughout training and in practice. Although studies in emergency medicine and general surgery showed mixed findings regarding gender differences in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones ratings, limited data exist examining such differences within ophthalmology. Objective: To examine gender differences in ophthalmology ACGME Milestones. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of postgraduate year 4 (PGY-4) residents from 120 ophthalmology programs graduating in 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: PGY-4 midyear and year-end medical knowledge (MK) and patient care (PC) ratings and Written Qualifying Examination (WQE) scaled scores for residents graduating in 2019 were included. Differential prediction techniques using Generalized Estimating Equations models were performed to identify differences by gender. Results: Of 452 residents (median [IQR] age, 30.0 [29.0-32.0] years), 275 (61%) identified as men and 177 (39%) as women. There were no differences in PC domain average between women and men for both midyear (-0.07; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0; P =.06) and year-end (-0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.03; P =.51) assessment periods. For the MK domain average in the midyear assessment period, women (mean [SD], 3.76 [0.50]) were rated lower than men (mean [SD], 3.88 [0.47]; P = .006) with a difference in mean of -0.12 (95% CI, -0.18 to -0.03). For the year-end assessment, however, the average MK ratings were not different for women (mean [SD], 4.10 [0.47]) compared with men (mean [SD], 4.18 [0.47]; P = .20) with a difference in mean of -0.08 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.03). Conclusions and Relevance: Results suggest that ACGME ophthalmology Milestones in 2 general competencies did not demonstrate major gender bias on a national level at the time of graduation. There were, however, differences in MK ratings at the midyear mark, and as low ratings on evaluations and examinations may adversely affect career opportunities for trainees, it is important to continue further work examining other competencies or performance measures for potential biases.

A consensus statement on the meaning, value and utility of training programme outcomes, with specific reference to anaesthesiology: A consensus statement on training programme outcomes.

It is timely and necessary to consider what Postgraduate Medical Training Programme outcomes are, how they are defined and revised over time, and how they can be used to align health professional performance with the healthcare needs of society. This article which addresses those issues, with specific reference to training in anaesthesiology, was prepared using a modified nominal group (or expert panel) approach.

Systems and Complexity Thinking to Master Leadership Challenges in Interprofessional Health Professionals Education.

The purpose of this article is to propose that knowledge, understanding, and application of systems and complexity thinking can improve assessment, implementation, and evaluation of interprofessional education (IPE). Using a case story, the authors describe and explain a meta-model of systems and complexity thinking to support leaders in implementing and evaluating IPE initiatives. The meta-model incorporates the use of several important, interrelated frameworks that tackle issues of sense making, systems, and complexity thinking as well as polarity management at different levels of scale in an organization. Combined, these theories and frameworks support recognition and management of cross-scale interactions and help leaders make sense of distinctions among simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic situations among IPE issues associated with healthcare disciplines within institutions. The application and use of Liberating Structures and polarity management practices enable leaders to engage people and gain insight into the complexities involved in successful implementation of IPE programs.