A Redesign of the ACGME Resident/Fellow Survey Through Expert Reviews and Cognitive Interviews.

Background: Since 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has surveyed residents and fellows in its accredited programs. The Resident/Fellow Survey is a screening and compliance tool that programs can also use for continuous quality improvement. However, stakeholders have reported potential problems with the survey's overall quality and credibility. Objective: To redesign the 2006 Resident/Fellow Survey using expert reviews and cognitive interviews. Methods: In 2018-2019, the ACGME redesigned the Resident/Fellow Survey using an iterative validation process: expert reviews (evidence based on content) and cognitive interviews (evidence based on response processes). Expert reviews were conducted by a survey design firm and an ACGME Task Force; cognitive interviews were conducted with a diverse set of 27 residents and fellows. Results: Expert reviews resulted in 21 new survey items to address the ACGME's updated accreditation requirements; these reviews also led to improvements that align the survey items with evidence-informed standards. After these changes were made, cognitive interviews resulted in additional revisions to sensitive items, item order, and response option order, labels, and conceptual spacing. In all, cognitive interviews led to 11 item deletions and other improvements designed to reduce response error. Conclusions: Expert reviews and cognitive interviews were used to redesign the Resident/Fellow Survey. The content of the redesigned survey aligns with the updated accreditation requirements and items are written in accordance with evidence-informed standards. Additionally, cognitive interviews resulted in revisions to the survey that seem to improve respondents' comprehension and willingness to respond to individual survey items.

The ACGME Single Accreditation System: Alterations in the Force of Graduate Medical Education.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) disturbed the gravitational forces of medical education when they entered into a historic agreement in August 2014. This agreement resulted in a 6-year journey to a single accreditation pathway for all residency programs and nearly all fellowship programs in the United States. It brought together the 2 traditions of medicine in the country for the first time in more than 100 years, unifying a critical phase of medical education for all physicians in the United States. In this commentary, the authors briefly describe the Single Accreditation System and relate their perspective on the factors leading to this profoundly important event and its impact on the ACGME, AOA, and medical education.

Elevating Resident Voices in Health Systems Change: Lessons From the Closure of Hahnemann University Hospital.

The closure of Philadelphia's Hahnemann University Hospital (HUH) in summer 2019 brought an abrupt end to its status as a sponsor of graduate medical education (GME). The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) provided assistance to ensure that more than 550 residents and fellows in HUH's 35 ACGME-accredited programs were able to transfer to new programs in which they could continue their education. As the ACGME joined other organizations in responding to HUH's closure, it was apparent that the voices of residents and fellows should be emphasized in regulatory processes and policies that address substantial disruptions to GME and affect their education, their daily lives, and their professional futures.

Causes of Death of Residents in ACGME-Accredited Programs 2000 Through 2014: Implications for the Learning Environment.

PURPOSE: To systematically study the number of U.S. resident deaths from all causes, including suicide. METHOD: The more than 9,900 programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) annually report the status of residents. The authors aggregated ACGME data on 381,614 residents in training during years 2000 through 2014. Names of residents reported as deceased were submitted to the National Death Index to learn causes of death. Person-year calculations were used to establish resident death rates and compare them with those in the general population. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2014, 324 individuals (220 men, 104 women) died while in residency. The leading cause of death was neoplastic disease, followed by suicide, accidents, and other diseases. For male residents the leading cause was suicide, and for female residents, malignancies. Resident death rates were lower than in the age- and gender-matched general population. Temporal patterns showed higher rates of death early in residency. Deaths by suicide were higher early in training, and during the first and third quarters of the academic year. There was no upward or downward trend in resident deaths over the 15 years of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Neoplastic disease and suicide were the leading causes of death in residents. Data for death by suicide suggest added risk early in residency and during certain months of the academic year. Providing trainees with a supportive environment and with medical and mental health services is integral to reducing preventable deaths and fostering a healthy physician workforce.

Initial Validity Analysis of the Emergency Medicine Milestones.

OBJECTIVES: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones describe behavioral markers for the progressive acquisition of competencies during residency. As a key component of the Next Accreditation System, all residents are evaluated for the acquisition of specialty-specific Milestones. The objective was to determine the validity and reliability of the emergency medicine (EM) Milestones. METHODS: The ACGME and the American Board of Emergency Medicine performed this single-event observational study. The data included the initial EM Milestones performance ratings of all categorical EM residents submitted to the ACGME from October 31, 2013, to January 6, 2014. Mean performance ratings were determined for all 23 subcompetencies for every year of residency training. The internal consistency (reliability) of the Milestones was determined using a standardized Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine how the subcompetencies were interrelated. RESULTS: EM Milestone performance ratings were obtained on 100% of EM residents (n = 5,805) from 162 residency programs. The mean performance ratings of the aggregate and individual subcompetency scores showed discrimination between residency years, and the factor structure further supported the validity of the EM Milestones. The reliability was α = 0.96 within each year of training. CONCLUSIONS: The EM Milestones demonstrated validity and reliability as an assessment instrument for competency acquisition. EM residents can be assured that this evaluation process has demonstrated validity and reliability; faculty can be confident that the Milestones are psychometrically sound; and stakeholders can know that the Milestones are a nationally standardized, objective measure of specialty-specific competency acquisition.

Transforming educational accountability in medical ethics and humanities education toward professionalism.

Effectively developing professionalism requires a programmatic view on how medical ethics and humanities should be incorporated into an educational continuum that begins in premedical studies, stretches across medical school and residency, and is sustained throughout one's practice. The Project to Rebalance and Integrate Medical Education National Conference on Medical Ethics and Humanities in Medical Education (May 2012) invited representatives from the three major medical education and accreditation organizations to engage with an expert panel of nationally known medical educators in ethics, history, literature, and the visual arts. This article, based on the views of these representatives and their respondents, offers a future-tense account of how professionalism can be incorporated into medical education.The themes that are emphasized herein include the need to respond to four issues. The first theme highlights how ethics and humanities can provide a response to the dissonance that occurs in current health care delivery. The second theme focuses on how to facilitate preprofessional readiness for applicants through reform of the medical school admission process. The third theme emphasizes the importance of integrating ethics and humanities into the medical school administrative structure. The fourth theme underscores how outcomes-based assessment should reflect developmental milestones for professional attributes and conduct. The participants emphasized that ethics and humanities-based knowledge, skills, and conduct that promote professionalism should be taught with accountability, flexibility, and the premise that all these traits are essential to the formation of a modern professional physician.

Interventions to address challenges associated with the transition from residency training to independent surgical practice.

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding preparation of residents for independent surgical practice are widespread and support for junior surgeons entering practice is variable across institutions and practices. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Division of Education partnered with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to convene a National Invitational Conference to define key issues relating to the transition to practice and develop recommendations to address various challenges. OUTCOMES OF THE NATIONAL INVITATIONAL CONFERENCE: Leaders from ACS, ACGME, certifying boards, residency review committees, program director organizations, and professional societies representing the breadth of surgical specialties, along with other key stakeholders, were invited to participate in the 1.5-day conference in July 2012. Key recommendations generated during the conference included the need to focus on the transition to practice within the context of the continuum of professional development; definition of specific levels of knowledge and skills expected of graduating surgery residents; development and adoption of competency-based methods for training, assessment, and advancement of residents; implementation of special interventions during the chief resident year to prepare residents for practice; robust evaluations of residents before graduation; intake assessments of junior surgeons during the onboarding processes; and effective mentorship for junior surgeons as they enter practice. Recommendations also highlighted major regulatory, legal, and financial issues. The key role of ACS and other national organizations in implementing the recommendations was underscored. CONCLUSION: The recommendations from the conference should be of great help in addressing various challenges associated with the transition from surgery residency to independent practice.

The accreditation system after the "next accreditation system".

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Board of Medical Specialties and its member boards introduced the six domains of physician competency in 1999. This initiated a national dialogue concerning the elements of competency of the physician, and incorporation of these elements into the framework of evaluation of residents and fellows, as well as the educational programs within which they are trained. The next step in this process will be the ACGME's Next Accreditation System, which the authors describe in this commentary. Recognizing that there are already developments in the assessment of medical education that will influence future models of accreditation, the authors consider some of these innovations and discuss how they may shape the next accreditation system after the Next Accreditation System.

Duty-hour limits and patient care and resident outcomes: can high-quality studies offer insight into complex relationships?

Long hours are an accepted component of resident education, yet data suggest they contribute to fatigue that may compromise patient safety. A systematic review confirms that limiting duty hours increases residents' hours of sleep and improves objective measures of alertness. Most studies of operative experience for surgical residents found no effect, and there is evidence of a limited positive effect on residents' mood. We find a mixed effect on patient safety, although problems with supervision, rather than the limits, may be responsible or contibute; evidence of reduced continuity of care and reduced continuity in residents' clinical education; and evidence that increased workload under the limits has a negative effect on patient and resident outcomes. We highlight specific areas for research and offer recommendations for national policy.

Commentary: the modesto story: back to the future?

In this issue of Academic Medicine, Broderick and Nocella describe the creative use of an educational consortium model to bring community providers together to solve the fiscal crisis faced by the local family medicine residency program, which was sponsored by a single-program sponsoring (hospital) institution. The authors of this commentary explore the specific adaptation of the educational consortium model to the previously single-program-sponsor setting, provide current numbers of accredited residency programs sponsored by educational consortia and other institutions, and speculate on the consortium model's potential to enhance community engagement and support for graduate medical education (GME) in the various settings in which GME is conducted in the United States.

Rethinking CME: an imperative for academic medicine and faculty development.

To help address the clinical care gap, a working group discussed the future of faculty development in academic medicine, explored problems within the large, current enterprise devoted to continuing medical education (CME), and described four domains core to its revitalization and reformation. These domains are (1) preparing and supporting an engaged clinician-learner, (2) improving the quality of knowledge or evidence shared, (3) enhancing the means by which to disseminate and implement that knowledge and evidence, and (4) reforming the patient, health care, and regulatory systems in and for which the process of CME exists. Reshaping these domains requires the consideration of a more seamless, evidence-based, and patient-oriented continuum of medical education. Revitalizing CME also requires the full engagement of the academic medical community and its faculty. To achieve the goal of creating a new, more effective, seamless process of CME, the working group recommended an active faculty development process to develop strong clinician-learners, strong involvement of academic health center leaders, the development of an educational home for clinician-learners, and a meaningful national conversation on the subject of CME.