Graduate Medical Education Accreditation Across Borders: Toward a Remote Alternative.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Al-Bualy R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7901630 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: Residents have a major role in teaching students, yet little has been written about the effects of resident work hour restrictions on medical student education. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the effects of resident work hour restrictions on medical student education. DESIGN: We compared student responses pre work hour restrictions with those completed post work hour restrictions. PARTICIPANTS: Students on required Internal Medicine, Surgery, and Pediatric clerkships at the University of Minnesota. MEASUREMENTS: Two thousand eight hundred twenty-five student responses on end-of-clerkship surveys. RESULTS: Students reported 1.6 more hours per week of teaching by residents (95%CI 0.8-2.6) in the post work hours era. Students' ratings of the overall quality of their teaching on the ward did not change appreciably, 0.05 points' decline on a 5-point scale (P = .05). Like the residents, students worked fewer hours per week (avg. 1.5 hours less, 95%CI 0.4-2.6). There was no change in quality or quantity of attending teaching, students' relationships with their patients, or the overall value of the clerkships. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas resident duty hour restrictions at our institution have had minimal effect on students' ratings of the overall teaching quality, they do report being taught more by their residents. This may be a factor of decreased resident fatigue or an increased sense of well-being; but more study is needed to clarify the causes of our observations.
| S-EPMC2219733 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceIn evaluating the effectiveness of general surgery (GS) training, an unbiased assessment of the progression of residents with attention to individual learner factors is imperative.ObjectiveTo evaluate the role of trainee sex in milestone achievement over the course of GS residency using national data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study evaluated female and male GS residents enrolled in ACGME-accredited programs in the US from 2014 to 2018 with reported variation in milestones performance across years in training and representation. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to June 2021.Main outcomes and measuresMean reported milestone score at initial and final assessment, and predicted time-to-attainment of equivalent performance by sex.ResultsAmong 4476 GS residents from 250 programs who had milestone assessments at any point in their clinical training, 1735 were female (38.8%). Initially, female and male residents received similar mean (SD) milestone scores (1.95 [0.50] vs 1.94 [0.50]; P = .69). At the final assessment, female trainees received overall lower mean milestone scores than male trainees (4.25 vs 4.31; P < .001). Significantly lower mean milestone scores were reported for female residents at the final assessment for several subcompetencies in both univariate and multivariate analyses, with only medical knowledge 1 (pathophysiology, diagnosis, and initial management) common to both. Multilevel mixed-effects linear modeling demonstrated that female trainees had significantly lower rates of monthly milestone attainment in the subcompetency of medical knowledge 1, which was associated with a significant difference in training time of approximately 1.8 months.Conclusions and relevanceBoth female and male GS trainees achieved the competency scores necessary to transition to independence after residency as measured by the milestones assessment system. Initially, there were no sex differences in milestone score. By graduation, there were differences in the measured assessment of female and male trainees across several subcompetencies. Careful monitoring for sex bias in the evaluation of trainees and scrutiny of the training process is needed to ensure that surgical residency programs support the educational needs of both female and male trainees.
| S-EPMC8264749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Since 1965, Medicare has publically financed graduate medical education (GME) in the United States. Given public financing, various advisory groups have argued that GME should be more socially accountable. Several efforts are underway to develop accountability measures for GME that could be tied to Medicare payments, but it is not clear how to measure or even define social accountability. OBJECTIVE: We explored how GME stakeholders perceive, define, and measure social accountability. METHODS: Through purposive and snowball sampling, we completed semistructured interviews with 18 GME stakeholders from GME training sites, government agencies, and health care organizations. We analyzed interview field notes and audiorecordings using a flexible, iterative, qualitative group process to identify themes. RESULTS: THREE THEMES EMERGED IN REGARDS TO DEFINING SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: (1) creating a diverse physician workforce to address regional needs and primary care and specialty shortages; (2) ensuring quality in training and care to best serve patients; and (3) providing service to surrounding communities and the general public. All but 1 stakeholder believed GME institutions have a responsibility to be socially accountable. Reported barriers to achieving social accountability included training time constraints, financial limitations, and institutional resistance. Suggestions for measuring social accountability included reviewing graduates' specialties and practice locations, evaluating curricular content, and reviewing program services to surrounding communities. CONCLUSIONS: Most stakeholders endorsed the concept of social accountability in GME, suggesting definitions and possible measures that could inform policy makers calls for increased accountability despite recognized barriers.
| S-EPMC3771174 | biostudies-other
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 is a global pandemic affecting >3 million people in >170 countries, resulting in >200 000 deaths; 35% to 40% of patients and deaths are in the United States. The coronavirus disease 2019 crisis is placing an enormous burden on health care in the United States, including residency and fellowship training programs. The balance between mitigation, training and education, and patient care is the ultimate determinant of the role of cardiology fellows in training during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis. On March 24, 2020, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education issued a formal response to the pandemic crisis and described a framework for operation of graduate medical education programs. Guidance for deployment of cardiology fellows in training during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis is based on the principles of a medical mission, and adherence to preparation, protection, and support of our fellows in training. The purpose of this review is to describe our departmental strategic deployment of cardiology fellows in training using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework for pandemic preparedness.
| S-EPMC7660705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Currently, accreditation in medical education is a priority for many countries worldwide. The World Federation for Medical Education’s (WFME) launch of its 1st trilogy of standards in 2003 was a seminal event promoting accreditation in basic medical education (BME) globally. In parallel, the WFME also actively spearheaded a project to recognize accrediting agencies within individual countries. The introduction of competency-based medical education (CBME), with the 2 key concepts of entrusted professional activity and milestones, has enabled researchers to identify the relationships between patient outcomes and medical education. The recent data-driven approach to CBME has been used for ongoing quality improvement of trainees and training programs. The accreditation goal has shifted from the single purpose of quality assurance to balancing quality assurance and quality improvement. Although there are many types of postgraduate medical education (PGME), it may be possible to accredit resident programs on a global scale by adopting the concept of CBME. It will also be possible to achieve accreditation alignment for BME and PGME, which center on competency. This approach may also make it possible to measure accreditation outcomes against patient outcomes. Therefore, evidence of the advantages of costly and labor-consuming accreditation processes will be available soon, and quality improvement will be the driving force of the accreditation process.
| S-EPMC7605903 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7301915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The German graduate medical education system is going through an important phase of changes. Besides the ongoing reform of the national guidelines for graduate medical education (Musterweiterbildungsordnung), other factors like societal and demographic changes, health and research policy reforms also play a central role for the future and competitiveness of graduate medical education. With this position paper, the committee on graduate medical education of the Society for Medical Education (GMA) would like to point out some central questions for this process and support the current discourse. As an interprofessional and interdisciplinary scientific society, the GMA has the resources to contribute in a meaningful way to an evidence-based and future-oriented graduate medical education strategy. In this position paper, we use four key questions with regards to educational goals, quality assurance, teaching competence and policy requirements to address the core issues for the future of graduate medical education in Germany. The GMA sees its task in contributing to the necessary reform processes as the only German speaking scientific society in the field of medical education.
| S-EPMC3671322 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4763388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the importance of pain management across specialties and the effect of poor management on patients, many physicians are uncomfortable managing pain. This may be related, in part, to deficits in graduate medical education (GME).ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate the methodological rigor of and summarize findings from literature on GME interventions targeting acute and chronic non-cancer pain management.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) to identify studies published before March 2019 that had a focus on non-cancer pain management, majority of GME learners, defined educational intervention, and reported outcome. Quality of design was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education (NOS-E). One author summarized educational foci and methods.ResultsThe original search yielded 6149 studies; 26 met inclusion criteria. Mean MERSQI score was 11.6 (SD 2.29) of a maximum 18; mean NOS-E score was 2.60 (SD 1.22) out of 6. Most studies employed a single group, pretest-posttest design (n=16, 64%). Outcomes varied: 6 (24%) evaluated reactions (Kirkpatrick level 1), 12 (48%) evaluated learner knowledge (level 2), 5 (20%) evaluated behavior (level 3), and 2 (8%) evaluated patient outcomes (level 4). Interventions commonly focused on chronic pain (n=18, 69%) and employed traditional lectures (n=16, 62%) and case-based learning (n=14, 54%).ConclusionsPain management education research in GME largely evaluated chronic pain management interventions by assessing learner reactions or knowledge at single sites.
| S-EPMC9017274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Cultural competency is an important skill that prepares physicians to care for patients from diverse backgrounds. OBJECTIVE: We reviewed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) program requirements and relevant documents from the ACGME website to evaluate competency requirements across specialties. METHODS: The program requirements for each specialty and its subspecialties were reviewed from December 2011 through February 2012. The review focused on the 3 competency domains relevant to culturally competent care: professionalism, interpersonal and communication skills, and patient care. Specialty and subspecialty requirements were assigned a score between 0 and 3 (from least specific to most specific). Given the lack of a standardized cultural competence rating system, the scoring was based on explicit mention of specific keywords. RESULTS: A majority of program requirements fell into the low- or no-specificity score (1 or 0). This included 21 core specialties (leading to primary board certification) program requirements (78%) and 101 subspecialty program requirements (79%). For all specialties, cultural competency elements did not gravitate toward any particular competency domain. Four of 5 primary care program requirements (pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, family medicine, and psychiatry) acquired the high-specificity score of 3, in comparison to only 1 of 22 specialty care program requirements (physical medicine and rehabilitation). CONCLUSIONS: The degree of specificity, as judged by use of keywords in 3 competency domains, in ACGME requirements regarding cultural competency is highly variable across specialties and subspecialties. Greater specificity in requirements is expected to benefit the acquisition of cultural competency in residents, but this has not been empirically tested.
| S-EPMC3693685 | biostudies-other