Administration of the American Board of Anesthesiology's virtual APPLIED Examination: successes, challenges, and lessons learned.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Board of Anesthesiology transitioned from in-person to virtual administration of its APPLIED Examination, assessing more than 3000 candidates for certification purposes remotely in 2021. Four hundred examiners were involved in delivering and scoring Standardized Oral Examinations (SOEs) and Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). More than 80% of candidates started their exams on time and stayed connected throughout the exam without any problems. Only 74 (2.5%) SOE and 45 (1.5%) OSCE candidates required rescheduling due to technical difficulties. Of those who experienced "significant issues", concerns with OSCE technical stations (interpretation of monitors and interpretation of echocardiograms) were reported most frequently (6% of candidates). In contrast, 23% of examiners "sometimes" lost connectivity during their multiple exam sessions, on a continuum from minor inconvenience to inability to continue. 84% of SOE candidates and 89% of OSCE candidates described "smooth" interactions with examiners and standardized patients/standardized clinicians, respectively. However, only 71% of SOE candidates and 75% of OSCE candidates considered themselves to be able to demonstrate their knowledge and skills without obstacles. When compared with their in-person experiences, approximately 40% of SOE examiners considered virtual evaluation to be more difficult than in-person evaluation and believed the remote format negatively affected their development as an examiner. The virtual format was considered to be less secure by 56% and 40% of SOE and OSCE examiners, respectively. The retirement of exam materials used virtually due to concern for compromise had implications for subsequent exam development. The return to in-person exams in 2022 was prompted by multiple factors, especially concerns regarding standardization and security. The technology is not yet perfect, especially for testing in-person communication skills and displaying dynamic exam materials. Nevertheless, the American Board of Anesthesiology's experience demonstrated the feasibility of conducting large-scale, high-stakes oral and performance exams in a virtual format and highlighted the adaptability and dedication of candidates, examiners, and administering board staff.

A comparison of 3- and 4-option multiple-choice items for medical subspecialty in-training examinations.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Anesthesiology piloted 3-option multiple-choice items (MCIs) for its 2020 administration of 150-item subspecialty in-training examinations for Critical Care Medicine (ITE-CCM) and Pediatric Anesthesiology (ITE-PA). The 3-option MCIs were transformed from their 4-option counterparts, which were administered in 2019, by removing the least effective distractor. The purpose of this study was to compare physician performance, response time, and item and exam characteristics between the 4-option and 3-option exams. METHODS: Independent-samples t-test was used to examine the differences in physician percent-correct score; paired t-test was used to examine the differences in response time and item characteristics. The Kuder and Richardson Formula 20 was used to calculate the reliability of each exam form. Both the traditional (distractor being selected by fewer than 5% of examinees and/or showing a positive correlation with total score) and sliding scale (adjusting the frequency threshold of distractor being chosen by item difficulty) methods were used to identify non-functioning distractors (NFDs). RESULTS: Physicians who took the 3-option ITE-CCM (mean = 67.7%) scored 2.1 percent correct higher than those who took the 4-option ITE-CCM (65.7%). Accordingly, 3-option ITE-CCM items were significantly easier than their 4-option counterparts. No such differences were found between the 4-option and 3-option ITE-PAs (71.8% versus 71.7%). Item discrimination (4-option ITE-CCM [an average of 0.13], 3-option ITE-CCM [0.12]; 4-option ITE-PA [0.08], 3-option ITE-PA [0.09]) and exam reliability (0.75 and 0.74 for 4- and 3-option ITE-CCMs, respectively; 0.62 and 0.67 for 4-option and 3-option ITE-PAs, respectively) were similar between these two formats for both ITEs. On average, physicians spent 3.4 (55.5 versus 58.9) and 1.3 (46.2 versus 47.5) seconds less per item on 3-option items than 4-option items for ITE-CCM and ITE-PA, respectively. Using the traditional method, the percentage of NFDs dropped from 51.3% in the 4-option ITE-CCM to 37.0% in the 3-option ITE-CCM and from 62.7% to 46.0% for the ITE-PA; using the sliding scale method, the percentage of NFDs dropped from 36.0% to 21.7% for the ITE-CCM and from 44.9% to 27.7% for the ITE-PA. CONCLUSIONS: Three-option MCIs function as robustly as their 4-option counterparts. The efficiency achieved by spending less time on each item poses opportunities to increase content coverage for a fixed testing period. The results should be interpreted in the context of exam content and distribution of examinee abilities.

A Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Pivot: Development of the American Board of Anesthesiology's Virtual APPLIED Examination.

In 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic interrupted the administration of the APPLIED Examination, the final part of the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) staged examination system for initial certification. In response, the ABA developed, piloted, and implemented an Internet-based "virtual" form of the examination to allow administration of both components of the APPLIED Exam (Standardized Oral Examination and Objective Structured Clinical Examination) when it was impractical and unsafe for candidates and examiners to travel and have in-person interactions. This article describes the development of the ABA virtual APPLIED Examination, including its rationale, examination format, technology infrastructure, candidate communication, and examiner training. Although the logistics are formidable, we report a methodology for successfully introducing a large-scale, high-stakes, 2-element, remote examination that replicates previously validated assessments.

Construct Validation of the American Board of Anesthesiology's APPLIED Examination for Initial Certification.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Anesthesiology administers the APPLIED Examination as a part of initial certification, which as of 2018 includes 2 components-the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE) and the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). The goal of this study is to investigate the measurement construct(s) of the APPLIED Examination to assess whether the SOE and the OSCE measure distinct constructs (ie, factors). METHODS: Exploratory item factor analysis of candidates' performance ratings was used to determine the number of constructs, and confirmatory item factor analysis to estimate factor loadings within each construct and correlation(s) between the constructs. RESULTS: In exploratory item factor analysis, the log-likelihood ratio test and Akaike information criterion index favored the 3-factor model, with factors reflecting the SOE, OSCE Communication and Professionalism, and OSCE Technical Skills. The Bayesian information criterion index favored the 2-factor model, with factors reflecting the SOE and the OSCE. In confirmatory item factor analysis, both models suggest moderate correlation between the SOE factor and the OSCE factor; the correlation was 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.55) for the 3-factor model and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.54-0.64) for the 2-factor model. The factor loadings were lower for Technical Skills stations of the OSCE (ranging from 0.11 to 0.25) compared with those of the SOE and Communication and Professionalism stations of the OSCE (ranging from 0.36 to 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The analyses provide evidence that the SOE and the OSCE measure distinct constructs, supporting the rationale for administering both components of the APPLIED Examination for initial certification in anesthesiology.

Demographic Trends From 2005 to 2015 Among Physicians With Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-Accredited Anesthesiology Training and Active Medical Licenses.

BACKGROUND: A temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates that occurred around the turn of the millennium may have workforce implications. The aims of this study are to describe, between 2005 and 2015, (1) demographic changes in the workforce of physicians trained as anesthesiologists; (2) national and state densities of these physicians, as well as temporal changes in the densities; and (3) retention of medical licenses by mid- and later-career anesthesiologists. METHODS: Using records from the American Board of Anesthesiology and state medical and osteopathic boards, the numbers of licensed physicians aged 30-59 years who had completed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited anesthesiology residency training were calculated cross-sectionally for 2005, 2010, and 2015. Demographic trends were then described. Census data were used to calculate national and state densities of licensed physicians. Individual longitudinal data were used to describe retention of medical licenses among older physicians. RESULTS: The number of licensed physicians trained as anesthesiologists aged 30-59 years increased from 32,644 in 2005 to 36,543 in 2010 and 36,624 in 2015, representing a national density of 1.10, 1.18, and 1.14 per 10,000 population in those years, respectively. The density of anesthesiologists among states ranged from 0.37 to 3.10 per 10,000 population. The age distribution differed across the years. For example, anesthesiologists aged 40-49 years predominated in 2005 (47%), but by 2015, only 31% of anesthesiologists were aged 40-49 years. The proportion of female anesthesiologists grew from 22% in 2005, to 24% in 2010, and to 28% in 2015, particularly among early-career anesthesiologists. For anesthesiologists with licenses in 2005, the number who still had active licenses in 2015 decreased by 9.6% for those aged 45-49 years, by 14.1% for those aged 50-54 years, and by 19.7% for those aged 55-59 years. CONCLUSIONS: The temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates around the turn of the 21st century decreased the proportion of anesthesiologists who were midcareer as of 2015. This may affect the future availability of senior leaders as well as the future overall workforce in the specialty as older anesthesiologists retire. National efforts to plan for workforce needs should recognize the geographical variability in the distribution of anesthesiologists.

Substance Use Disorder in Physicians after Completion of Training in Anesthesiology in the United States from 1977 to 2013.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorder among physicians can expose both physicians and their patients to significant risk. Data regarding the epidemiology and outcomes of physician substance use disorder are scarce but could guide policy formulation and individual treatment decisions. This article describes the incidence and outcomes of substance use disorder that resulted in either a report to a certifying body or death in physicians after the completion of anesthesiology training. METHODS: Physicians who completed training in U.S. anesthesiology residency programs from 1977 to 2013 and maintained at least one active medical license were included in this retrospective cohort study (n = 44,736). Substance use disorder cases were ascertained through records of the American Board of Anesthesiology and the National Death Index. RESULTS: Six hundred and one physicians had evidence of substance use disorder after completion of training, with an overall incidence of 0.75 per 1,000 physician-years (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.80; 0.84 [0.78 to 0.90] in men, 0.43 [0.35 to 0.52] in women). The highest incidence rate occurred in 1992 (1.79 per 1,000 physician-years [95% CI, 1.12 to 2.59]). The cumulative percentage expected to develop substance use disorder within 30 yr estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis equaled 1.6% (95% CI, 1.4 to 1.7%). The most common substances used by 353 individuals for whom information was available were opioids (193 [55%]), alcohol (141 [40%]), and anesthetics/hypnotics (69 [20%]). Based on a median of 11.1 (interquartile range, 4.4 to 19.8) yr of follow-up, the cumulative proportion of survivors estimated to experience at least one relapse within 30 yr was 38% (95% CI, 31 to 43%). Of the 601 physicians with substance use disorder, 114 (19%) were dead from a substance use disorder-related cause at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of anesthesiologists who develop substance use disorder after the completion of training die of this condition, and the risk of relapse is high in those who survive.

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.

First-Year Results of the American Board of Anesthesiology's Objective Structured Clinical Examination for Initial Certification.

In 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) into its initial certification examination system. Previously, the ABA's staged examination system consisted of 2 written examinations (the BASIC and ADVANCED examinations) and the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The OSCE and the existing SOE are now 2 separate components of the APPLIED Examination. This report presents the results of the first-year OSCE administration. A total of 1410 candidates took both the OSCE and the SOE in 2018. Candidate performance approximated a normal distribution for both the OSCE and the SOE, and was not associated with the timing of the examination, including day of the week, morning versus afternoon session, and order of the OSCE and the SOE. Practice-based Learning and Improvement was the most difficult station, while Application of Ultrasonography was the least difficult. The correlation coefficient between SOE and OSCE scores was 0.35 ([95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.30-0.39]; P < .001). Scores for the written ADVANCED Examination were modestly correlated with scores for the SOE (r = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.25-0.34]; P < .001) and the OSCE (r = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10-0.20]; P < .001). Most of the candidates who failed the SOE passed the OSCE, and most of the candidates who failed the OSCE passed the SOE. Of the 1410 candidates, 77 (5.5%) failed the OSCE, 155 (11.0%) failed the SOE, and 25 (1.8%) failed both. Thus, 207 (14.7%) failed at least 1 component of the APPLIED Examination. Adding an OSCE to a board certification examination system is feasible. Preliminary evidence indicates that the OSCE measures aspects of candidate abilities distinct from those measured by other examinations used for initial board certification.

The American Board of Anesthesiology's Standardized Oral Examination for Initial Board Certification.

The American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) has been administering an oral examination as part of its initial certification process since 1939. Among the 24 member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties, 13 other boards also require passing an oral examination for physicians to become certified in their specialties. However, the methods used to develop, administer, and score these examinations have not been published. The purpose of this report is to describe the history and evolution of the anesthesiology Standardized Oral Examination, its current examination development and administration, the psychometric model and scoring, physician examiner training and auditing, and validity evidence. The many-facet Rasch model is the analytic method used to convert examiner ratings into scaled scores for candidates and takes into account how difficult grader examiners are and the difficulty of the examination tasks. Validity evidence of the oral examination includes that it measures aspects of clinical performance not accounted for by written certifying examinations, and that passing the oral examination is associated with a decreased risk of subsequent license actions against the anesthesiologist. Explaining the details of the Standardized Oral Examination provides transparency about this component of initial certification in anesthesiology.

Association Between Participation and Performance in MOCA Minute and Actions Against the Medical Licenses of Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: In January 2016, as part of the Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology (MOCA) program, the American Board of Anesthesiology launched MOCA Minute, a web-based longitudinal assessment, to supplant the former cognitive examination. We investigated the association between participation and performance in MOCA Minute and disciplinary actions against medical licenses of anesthesiologists. METHODS: All anesthesiologists with time-limited certificates (ie, certified in 2000 or after) who were required to register for MOCA Minute in 2016 were followed up through December 31, 2016. The incidence of postcertification prejudicial license actions was compared between those who did and did not register and compared between registrants who did and did not meet the MOCA Minute performance standard. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of license actions was 1.2% (245/20,006) in anesthesiologists required to register for MOCA Minute. Nonregistration was associated with a higher incidence of license actions (hazard ratio, 2.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.15-4.00]). For the 18,534 (92.6%) who registered, later registration (after June 30, 2016) was associated with a higher incidence of license actions. In 2016, 16,308 (88.0%) anesthesiologists met the MOCA Minute performance standard. Of those not meeting the standard (n = 2226), most (n = 2093, 94.0%) failed because they did not complete the required 120 questions. Not meeting the standard was associated with a higher incidence of license actions (hazard ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.36-2.72]). CONCLUSIONS: Both timely participation and meeting performance standard in MOCA Minute are associated with a lower likelihood of being disciplined by a state medical board.

Effect of the BASIC Examination on Knowledge Acquisition during Anesthesiology Residency.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Anesthesiology recently introduced the BASIC Examination, a component of its new staged examinations for primary certification, typically offered to residents at the end of their first year of clinical anesthesiology training. This analysis tested the hypothesis that the introduction of the BASIC Examination was associated with an acceleration of knowledge acquisition during the residency training period, as measured by increments in annual In-Training Examination scores. METHODS: In-Training Examination performance was compared longitudinally among four resident cohorts (n = 6,488) before and after the introduction of the staged system using mixed-effects models that accounted for possible covariates. RESULTS: Compared with previous cohorts in the traditional examination system, the first resident cohort in the staged system had a greater improvement in In-Training Examination scores between the first and second years of clinical anesthesiology training (by an estimated 2.0 points in scaled score on a scale of 1 to 50 [95% CI, 1.7 to 2.3]). By their second year, they had achieved a score similar to that of third-year clinical anesthesiology residents in previous cohorts. The second cohort to enter the staged system had a greater improvement of the scores between the clinical base year and the first clinical anesthesiology year, compared with the previous cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the hypothesis that the introduction of the BASIC Examination is associated with accelerated knowledge acquisition in residency training and provides evidence for the value of the new staged system in promoting desired educational outcomes of anesthesiology training.

Association between Performance in a Maintenance of Certification Program and Disciplinary Actions against the Medical Licenses of Anesthesiologists.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: In 2000, the American Board of Anesthesiology (Raleigh, North Carolina) began issuing time-limited certificates requiring renewal every 10 yr through a maintenance of certification program. This study investigated the association between performance in this program and disciplinary actions against medical licenses. METHODS: The incidence of postcertification prejudicial license actions was compared (1) between anesthesiologists certified between 1994 and 1999 (non-time-limited certificates not requiring maintenance of certification) and those certified between 2000 and 2005 (time-limited certificates requiring maintenance of certification); (2) within the non-time-limited cohort, between those who did and did not voluntarily participate in maintenance of certification; and (3) within the time-limited cohort, between those who did and did not complete maintenance of certification requirements within 10 yr. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of license actions was 3.8% (587 of 15,486). The incidence did not significantly differ after time-limited certificates were introduced (hazard ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.39; for non-time-limited cohort compared with time-limited cohort). In the non-time-limited cohort, 10% (n = 953) voluntarily participated in maintenance of certification. Maintenance of certification participation was associated with a lower incidence of license actions (hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.94). In the time-limited cohort, 90% (n = 5,329) completed maintenance of certification requirements within 10 yr of certificate issuance. Not completing maintenance of certification requirements (n = 588) was associated with a higher incidence of license actions (hazard ratio = 4.61; 95% CI, 3.27 to 6.51). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that meeting maintenance of certification requirements is associated with a lower likelihood of being disciplined by a state licensing agency. The introduction of time-limited certificates in 2000 was not associated with a significant change in the rate of license actions.

Effectiveness of Written and Oral Specialty Certification Examinations to Predict Actions against the Medical Licenses of Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Anesthesiology administers written and oral examinations for its primary certification. This retrospective cohort study tested the hypothesis that the risk of a disciplinary action against a physician's medical license is lower in those who pass both examinations than those who pass only the written examination. METHODS: Physicians who entered anesthesiology training from 1971 to 2011 were followed up to 2014. License actions were ascertained via the Disciplinary Action Notification Service of the Federation of State Medical Boards. RESULTS: The incidence rate of license actions was relatively stable over the study period, with approximately 2 to 3 new cases per 1,000 person-years. In multivariable models, the risk of license actions was higher in men (hazard ratio = 1.88 [95% CI, 1.66 to 2.13]) and lower in international medical graduates (hazard ratio = 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66 to 0.81]). Compared with those passing both examinations on the first attempt, those passing neither examination (hazard ratio = 3.60 [95% CI, 3.14 to 4.13]) and those passing only the written examination (hazard ratio = 3.51 [95% CI, 2.87 to 4.29]) had an increased risk of receiving an action from a state medical board. The risk was no different between the latter two groups (P = 0.81), showing that passing the oral but not the written primary certification examination is associated with a decreased risk of subsequent license actions. For those with residency performance information available, having at least one unsatisfactory training record independently increased the risk of license actions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the concept that an oral examination assesses domains important to physician performance that are not fully captured in a written examination.

Association between Participation in an Intensive Longitudinal Assessment Program and Performance on a Cognitive Examination in the Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology Program®.

BACKGROUND: As part of the Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology Program® (MOCA®), the American Board of Anesthesiology (Raleigh, North Carolina) developed the MOCA Minute program, a web-based intensive longitudinal assessment involving weekly questions with immediate feedback and links to learning resources. This observational study tested the hypothesis that individuals who participate in the MOCA Minute program perform better on the MOCA Cognitive Examination (CE) compared with those who do not participate. METHODS: Two separate cohorts of individuals eligible for July 2014 and January 2015 CEs were invited to participate in this pilot. The CE scores for each cohort were compared between those who did and did not participate, controlling for the factors known to affect performance. For the first cohort, examination performances for topics covered and not covered by the MOCA Minute were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Six hundred sixteen diplomates in July 2014 and 684 diplomates in January 2015 took the CE for the first time. In multiple regression analysis, those actively participating scored 9.9 points (95% CI, 0.8 to 18.9) and 9.3 points (95% CI, 2.3 to 16.3) higher when compared with those not enrolled, respectively. Compared to the group that did not enroll in MOCA Minute, those who enrolled but did not actively participate demonstrated no improvement in scores. MOCA Minute participation was associated with improvement in both questions covering topics included the MOCA Minute and questions not covering these topics. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides evidence that voluntary active participation in a program featuring frequent knowledge assessments accompanied by targeted learning resources is associated with improved performance on a high-stakes CE.

Clinical Performance Scores Are Independently Associated with the American Board of Anesthesiology Certification Examination Scores.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether clinical performance during residency is related to the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) oral examination scores. We hypothesized that resident clinical performance would be independently associated with oral examination performance because the oral examination is designed to test for clinical judgment. METHOD: We determined clinical performance scores (Zrel) during the final year of residency for all 124 Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) anesthesia residents who graduated from 2009 to 2013. One hundred eleven graduates subsequently took the ABA written and oral examinations. We standardized each graduate's written examination score (ZPart 1) and oral examination score (ZPart 2) to the national average. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the partial effects of MGH clinical performance scores and ABA written examination scores on ABA oral examination scores. RESULTS: MGH clinical performance scores (Zrel) correlated with both ABA written examination scores (ZPart 1) (r = 0.27; P = 0.0047) and with ABA oral examination scores (ZPart 2) (r = 0.33; P = 0.0005). ABA written examination scores (ZPart 1) correlated with oral examination scores (ZPart 2) (r = 0.46; P = 0.0001). Clinical performance scores (Zrel) and ABA written examination scores (ZPart 1) independently accounted for 4.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5%-12.4%; P = 0.012) and 20.8% (95% CI, 8.0%-37.2%; P < 0.0001), respectively, of the variance in ABA oral examination scores (ZPart 2). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical performance scores and ABA written examination scores independently accounted for variance in ABA oral examination scores. Clinical performance scores are independently associated with the ABA oral examination scores.

Risk and Outcomes of Substance Use Disorder among Anesthesiology Residents: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this work is to evaluate selected risk factors and outcomes for substance use disorder (SUD) in physicians enrolled in anesthesiology residencies approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. METHODS: For each of 384 individuals with evidence of SUD while in primary residency training in anesthesiology from 1975 to 2009, two controls (n = 768) who did not develop SUD were identified and matched for sex, age, primary residency program, and program start date. Risk factors evaluated included location of medical school training (United States vs. other) and anesthesia knowledge as assessed by In-Training Examination performance. Outcomes (assessed to December 31, 2013, with a median follow-up time of 12.2 and 15.1 yr for cases and controls, respectively) included mortality and profession-related outcomes. RESULTS: Receiving medical education within the United States, but not performance on the first in-training examination, was associated with an increased risk of developing SUD as a resident. Cases demonstrated a marked increase in the risk of death after training (hazard ratio, 7.9; 95% CI, 3.1 to 20.5), adverse training outcomes including failure to complete residency (odds ratio, 14.9; 95% CI, 9.0 to 24.6) or become board certified (odds ratio, 10.4; 95% CI, 7.0 to 15.5), and adverse medical licensure actions subsequent to residency (hazard ratio, 6.8; 95% CI, 3.8 to 12.2). As of the end of follow-up, 54 cases (14.1%) were deceased compared with 10 controls (1.3%); 28 cases and no controls died during residency. CONCLUSION: The attributable risk of SUD to several adverse outcomes during and after residency training, including death and adverse medical license actions, is substantial.