The next GME accreditation system--rationale and benefits.

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 02/2012; 366(11):1051-6. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr1200117
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced the six domains of clinical competency to the profession,(1) and in 2009, it began a multiyear process of restructuring its accreditation system to be based on educational outcomes in these competencies. The result of this effort is the Next Accreditation System (NAS), scheduled for phased implementation beginning in July 2013. The aims of the NAS are threefold: to enhance the ability of the peer-review system to prepare physicians for practice in the 21st century, to accelerate the ACGME's movement toward accreditation on the basis of educational outcomes, and to . . .

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The cadre of information pertinent to critical care medicine continues to expand at a tremendous pace, and we must adapt our strategies of medical education to keep up with the expansion. Differences in learners' characteristics can contribute to a mismatch with historical teaching strategies. Simulation is increasingly popular, but still far from universal. Emerging technology has the potential to improve our knowledge translation, but there is currently sparse literature describing these resources or their benefits and limitations. Directed strategies of assessment and feedback are often suboptimal. Even strategies of accreditation are evolving. This review attempts to summarize salient concepts, suggest resources, and highlight novel strategies to enhance practice and education in the challenging critical care environment. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Critical Care 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.02.001 · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction. A safe and effective transition from hospital to post-acute care is a complex and important physician competency. Milestones and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPA) form the new educational rubric in Graduate Medical Education Training. “A safe and effective discharge from the hospital” is an EPA ripe for educational innovation. Methods. The authors collaborated in a qualitative process called mapping to define 22 of 142 Internal Medicine (IM) curricular milestones related to the transition of care. Fifty-five participant units at an Association for Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM) workshop prioritized the milestones, using a validated ranking process called Q-sort. We analyzed the Q-sort results, which rank the milestones in order of priority. We then applied this ranking to three innovative models of training IM residents in the transitions of care: Simulation (S), Discharge Clinic Feedback (DCF) and TRACER (T). Results. We collected 55 Q-sort rankings from particpants at the APDIM workshop. We then identified which milestones are a focus of the three innovative models of training in the transition of care: Simulation = 5 of 22 milestones, Discharge Clinic Feedback = 9 of 22 milestones, and TRACER = 7 of 22 milestones. Milestones identified in each innovation related to one of the top 8 prioritized milestones 75% of the time; thus, more frequently than the milestones with lower priority. Two milestones are shared by all three curricula: Utilize patient-centered education and Ensure succinct written communication. Two other milestones are shared by two curricula: Manage and coordinate care transitions across multiple delivery systems and Customize care in the context of the patient’s preferences. If you combine the three innovations, all of the top 8 milestones are included. Discussion. The milestones give us a context to share individual innovations and to compare and contrast using a standardized frame. We demonstrate that the three unique discharge curricula in aggregate capture all of the highest prioritized milestones for this discharge EPA.
    03/2015; 3:e819. DOI:10.7717/peerj.819
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Professionalism is deemed as the basis of physicians' contract with society in Japan. Our study in 2005, using a questionnaire with scenarios to professionalism, suggested that many physicians at various levels of training in Japan encounter challenges when responding to these common scenarios related to professionalism. It is unclear how medical professionalism has changed among Japanese residents in over time. We conducted a follow-up survey about challenges to professionalism for Japanese residents using the same Barry Questionnaire after a seven-year interval from the prior survey. The survey uses six clinical scenarios with multiple choice responses. The six cases include the following challenges: acceptance of gifts; conflict of interest; confidentiality; physician impairment; sexual harassment; and honesty in documentation. Each scenario is followed by 4 or 5 possible responses, including the "best" and the "second best" responses. The survey was conducted as a part of nationwide general medicine in-training examination. We collected data from 1,049 participants (290 women, 28%; 431 PGY-1 and 618 PGY-2 residents). Overall, the current residents performed better than their colleagues in the earlier survey for five scenarios (gifts, conflict of interest, confidentiality, impairment, and honesty) but not for the harassment scenario. PGY-2 residents were more likely to select either the best or 2nd best choices to gifts (p = 0.002) and harassment (p = 0.031) scenarios than PGY-1 residents. Residents in the current study chose either the best or 2nd best choices to the gifts (p < 0.001) and honesty (p < 0.001) scenarios than those of the previous study conducted seven years ago, but not for the harassment scenario (p = 0.004). Our study suggests that there is improvement of medical professionalism with respect to some ethical challenges among the Japanese residents in the current study compared to those in our previous study.
    BMC Medical Education 12/2015; 15(1):313. DOI:10.1186/s12909-015-0313-6 · 1.41 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 2, 2014