Woodworth, Glenn E.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, a set of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and procedural skills assessments were developed for anesthesiology training, but they did not assess all the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. The aims of this study were to (1) remap the 2018 EPA and procedural skills assessments to the revised ACGME Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0, (2) develop new assessments that combined with the original assessments to create a system of assessment that addresses all level 1 to 4 milestones, and (3) provide evidence for the validity of the assessments. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, a panel of anesthesiology education experts remapped the original assessments developed in 2018 to the Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0 and developed new assessments to create a system that assessed all level 1 through 4 milestones. Following a 24-month pilot at 7 institutions, the number of EPA and procedural skill assessments and mean scores were computed at the end of the academic year. Milestone achievement and subcompetency data for assessments from a single institution were compared to scores assigned by the institution’s clinical competency committee (CCC). RESULTS: New assessment development, 2 months of testing and feedback, and revisions resulted in 5 new EPAs, 11 nontechnical skills assessments (NTSAs), and 6 objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). Combined with the original 20 EPAs and procedural skills assessments, the new system of assessment addresses 99% of level 1 to 4 Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0. During the 24-month pilot, aggregate mean EPA and procedural skill scores significantly increased with year in training. System subcompetency scores correlated significantly with 15 of 23 (65.2%) corresponding CCC scores at a single institution, but 8 correlations (36.4%) were <30.0, illustrating poor correlation. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of experts developed a set of EPAs, procedural skill assessment, NTSAs, and OSCEs to form a programmatic system of assessment for anesthesiology residency training in the United States. The method used to develop and pilot test the assessments, the progression of assessment scores with time in training, and the correlation of assessment scores with CCC scoring of milestone achievement provide evidence for the validity of the assessments.

BACKGROUND: Global medical education is gradually moving toward more comprehensive implementations of a competency-based education (CBE) model. Elimination of standard time-based training and adoption of time-variable training (competency-based time-variable training [CB-TVT]) is one of the final stages of implementation of CBE. While CB-TVT has been implemented in some programs outside the United States, residency programs in the United States are still exploring this approach to training. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) are encouraging member boards and residency review committees to consider innovative ways programs could implement CB-TVT. The goals of this study were to (1) identify potential problems with the implementation of CB-TVT in anesthesiology residency training, (2) rank the importance of the problems and the perceived difficulty of solving them, and (3) develop proposed solutions to the identified problems. METHODS: Study participants were recruited from key stakeholder groups in anesthesiology education, including current or former program directors, department chairs, residents, fellows, American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) board members, ACGME residency review committee members or ACGME leaders, designated institutional officials, residency program coordinators, clinical operations directors, and leaders of large anesthesiology community practice groups. This study was conducted in 2 phases. In phase 1, survey questionnaires were iteratively distributed to participants to identify problems with the implementation of CB-TVT. Participants were also asked to rank the perceived importance and difficulty of each problem and to identify relevant stakeholder groups that would be responsible for solving each problem. In phase 2, surveys focused on identifying potential solutions for problems identified in phase 1. RESULTS: A total of 36 stakeholders identified 39 potential problems, grouped into 7 major categories, with the implementation of CB-TVT in anesthesiology residency training. Of the 39 problems, 19 (48.7%) were marked as important or very important on a 5-point scale and 12 of 19 (63.2%) of the important problems were marked as difficult or very difficult to solve on a 5-point scale. Stakeholders proposed 165 total solutions to the identified problems. CONCLUSIONS: CB-TVT is a promising educational model for anesthesiology residency, which potentially results in learner flexibility, individualization of curricula, and utilization of competencies to determine learner advancement. Because of the potential problems with the implementation of CB-TVT, it is important for future pilot implementations of CB-TVT to document realized problems, efficacy of solutions, and effects on educational outcomes to justify the burden of implementing CB-TVT.

Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) offers descriptions of competencies and milestones but does not provide standardized assessments to track trainee competency. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and special assessments (SAs) are emerging methods to assess the level of competency obtained by regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RAAPM) fellows. Methods A panel of RAAPM physicians with experience in education and competency assessment and one medical student were recruited to participate in a modified Delphi method with iterative rounds to reach consensus on: a list of EPAs, SAs, and procedural skills; detailed definitions for each EPA and SA; a mapping of the EPAs and SAs to the ACGME milestones; and a target level of entrustment for graduating US RAAPM fellows for each EPA and procedural skill. A gap analysis was performed and a heat map was created to cross-check the EPAs and SAs to the ACGME milestones. Results Participants in EPA and SA development included 19 physicians and 1 medical student from 18 different programs. The Delphi rounds yielded a final list of 23 EPAs, a defined entrustment scale, mapping of the EPAs to ACGME milestones, and graduation targets. A list of 73 procedural skills and 7 SAs were similarly developed. Discussion A list of 23 RAAPM EPAs, 73 procedural skills, and 7 SAs were created using a rigorous methodology to reach consensus. This framework can be utilized to help assess RAAPM fellows in the USA for competency and allow for meaningful performance feedback.

Background and objectives Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. Methods Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. Conclusion By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Modern medical education requires frequent competency assessment. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) provides a descriptive framework of competencies and milestones but does not provide standardized instruments to assess and track trainee competency over time. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) represent a workplace-based method to assess the achievement of competency milestones at the point-of-care that can be applied to anesthesiology training in the United States. METHODS: Experts in education and competency assessment were recruited to participate in a 6-step process using a modified Delphi method with iterative rounds to reach consensus on an entrustment scale, a list of EPAs and procedural skills, detailed definitions for each EPA, a mapping of the EPAs to the ACGME milestones, and a target level of entrustment for graduating US anesthesiology residents for each EPA and procedural skill. The defined EPAs and procedural skills were implemented using a website and mobile app. The assessment system was piloted at 7 anesthesiology residency programs. After 2 months, faculty were surveyed on their attitudes on usability and utility of the assessment system. The number of evaluations submitted per month was collected for 1 year. RESULTS: Participants in EPA development included 18 education experts from 11 different programs. The Delphi rounds produced a final list of 20 EPAs, each differentiated as simple or complex, a defined entrustment scale, mapping of the EPAs to milestones, and graduation entrustment targets. A list of 159 procedural skills was similarly developed. Results of the faculty survey demonstrated favorable ratings on all questions regarding app usability as well as the utility of the app and EPA assessments. Over the 2-month pilot period, 1636 EPA and 1427 procedure assessments were submitted. All programs continued to use the app for the remainder of the academic year resulting in 12,641 submitted assessments. CONCLUSIONS: A list of 20 anesthesiology EPAs and 159 procedural skills assessments were developed using a rigorous methodology to reach consensus among education experts. The assessments were pilot tested at 7 US anesthesiology residency programs demonstrating the feasibility of implementation using a mobile app and the ability to collect assessment data. Adoption at the pilot sites was variable; however, the use of the system was not mandatory for faculty or trainees at any site.