Coronary and Structural Heart Disease Interventions During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Road Map for Clinicians and Health Care Delivery Systems.

BACKGROUND: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, cath labs have had to modify their workflow for elective and urgent patients. METHODS: We surveyed 16 physicians across 3 hospitals in our healthcare system to address COVID-19 related concerns in the management of interventional and structural heart disease patients, and to formulate system wide criteria for deferring cases till after the pandemic. RESULTS: Our survey yielded common concerns centered on the need to protect patients, cath lab staff and physicians from unnecessary exposure to COVID-19; for COVID-19 testing prior to arrival to the cath lab; for clear communication between the referring physician and the interventionalist; but there was initial uncertainty among physicians regarding the optimal management of ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI; percutaneous coronary intervention versus thrombolytics). Patients with stable angina and hemodynamically stable acute coronary syndromes were deemed suitable for initial medical management, except when they had large ischemic burden. Most transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI) were felt appropriate for postponement except in symptomatic patients with aortic valve area <0.5 cm2 or recent hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Most percutaneous mitral valve repair (pMVR) procedures were felt appropriate for postponement except in patients with HF. All left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and patent foramen ovale (PFO)/atrial septal defect (ASD) closure procedures were felt appropriate for postponement. CONCLUSION: Our survey of an experienced team of clinicians yielded concise guidelines to direct the management of CAD and structural heart disease patients during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.

What Is the Relative Value Unit of Being "On Call"?

There is very little information on what is the relative value unit (RVU) for a physician being "on call." This paper proposes a broad construct to devise a formula for the RVU of being on call.

Understanding ACGME Scholarly Activity Requirements for General Surgery Programs in the Era of Single Accreditation and the Next Accreditation System.

Becoming compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements for scholarly activity and remaining compliant over time requires time and attention to the development of an environment of inquiry, which is reflected in detailed documentation submitted in program applications and annual updates. Since the beginning of the next accreditation system, all ACGME programs have been required to submit evidence of scholarly activity of both residents and faculty on an annual basis. Since 2014, American Osteopathic Association-accredited programs have been able to apply for ACGME accreditation under the Single Graduate Medical Education Accreditation initiative. The Residency Program Director, Chair, Designated Institutional Official, Faculty, and coordinator need to work cohesively to ensure compliance with all program requirements, including scholarly activity in order for American Osteopathic Association-accredited programs to receive Initial ACGME Accreditation and for current ACGME-accredited programs to maintain accreditation. Fortunately, there are many ways to show the type of scholarly activity that is required for the training of surgeons. In this article, we will review the ACGME General Surgery Program Requirements and definitions of scholarly activity. We will also offer suggestions for how programs may show evidence of scholarly activity.

Requirements for Certification in Surgery: A Comparison of the American Board of Surgery and the American Osteopathic Board of Surgery.

In early 2014, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the American Osteopathic Association, and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine agreed to a memorandum of understanding describing a single accreditation system for graduate medical education in the United States. Although there are many benefits, such as consistent quality of graduate medical education, alignment of competency standards, alignment with policymakers' expectations, unification of voices on graduate medical education access and funding issues, and visibility of osteopathic medicine, there are also many challenges in creating a uniform system of graduate medical education. The authors review the pathways to initial certification for both the American Board of Surgery and the American Osteopathic Board of Surgery and discuss recertification and maintenance of certification.