Keegan, Mark T.

Objectives: In the United States, training for physicians who manage critically ill adult patients (intensivists) evolved through parallel subspecialty critical care medicine (CCM) pathways with significant commonality. The Society of Critical Care Medicine Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force aimed to delineate the common core knowledge and skills required of all intensivists. Design: A master list of content areas and procedural skills was compiled from all CCM subspecialty program requirements and blueprints of the certification examinations. Using a modified Delphi approach, participants were asked to categorize the knowledge items as “advanced knowledge is essential,” “general, but not advanced, knowledge is essential,” or “knowledge is not essential.” Procedures were categorized as “intensivist performs routinely,” “intensivist only performs in an emergency,” or “intensivist knows” about the procedure. Setting: Representatives from CCM stakeholder organizations, including accreditation and certification organizations, critical care societies, and program directors’ societies, were invited to participate. SUBJECTS: Members of the Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Interventions: For the first two rounds of the modified Delphi process, Research Electronic Data Capture was used. For the third and fourth rounds, the process was completed through online meetings with Zoom (Zoom Video Corporations, San Jose, CA) utilizing Zoom’s polling feature. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 541 items were determined to be essential, with 145 requiring advanced knowledge and 323 requiring general knowledge. For 73 items, consensus regarding advanced vs. general could not be achieved, but they remained essential. Only eight items were felt to be nonessential. Of the 16 procedures, most were categorized as “intensivist performs.” Conclusions: The large number of items included in the list of essential knowledge and skills demonstrates the complexity of modern CCM. Utilization of a common framework across the subspecialties of CCM could lead to greater harmonization among the fellowship program requirements and certification examinations.

Abstract Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic prompted training institutions and national credentialing organizations to administer examinations virtually. This study compared task difficulty, examiner grading, candidate performance, and other psychometric properties between in-person and virtual standardized oral examinations (SOEs) administered by the American Board of Anesthesiology. Method This retrospective study included SOEs administered in person from March 2018 to March 2020 and virtually from December 2020 to November 2021. The in-person and virtual SOEs share the same structure, including 4 tasks of preoperative evaluation, intraoperative management, postoperative care, and additional topics. The Many-Facet Rasch Model was used to estimate candidate performance, examiner grading severity, and task difficulty for the in-person and virtual SOEs separately; the virtual SOE was equated to the in-person SOE by common examiners and all tasks. The independent-samples and partially overlapping-samples t tests were used to compare candidate performance and examiner grading severity between these 2 formats, respectively. Results In-person (n = 3,462) and virtual (n = 2,959) first-time candidates were comparable in age, sex, race and ethnicity, and whether they were U.S. medical school graduates. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) candidate performance was 2.96 (1.76) logits for the virtual SOE, which was statistically significantly better than that for the in-person SOE (mean [SD], 2.86 [1.75]; Welch independent-samples t test, P = .02); however, the effect size was negligible (Cohen d = 0.06). The difference in the grading severity of examiners who rated the in-person (n = 398; mean [SD], 0.00 [0.73]) versus virtual (n = 341; mean [SD], 0.07 [0.77]) SOE was not statistically significant (Welch partially overlapping-samples t test, P = .07). Conclusions Candidate performance and examiner grading severity were comparable between the in-person and virtual SOEs, supporting the reliability and validity of the virtual oral exam in this large-volume, high-stakes setting.

Abstract Background Preoperative risk scores facilitate patient selection, but postoperative risk scores may offer valuable information for predicting outcomes. We hypothesized that the postoperative Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score would predict mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data from 294 continuous‐flow LVAD implantations performed at Mayo Clinic Rochester during 2007 to 2015. We calculated the EuroSCORE, HeartMate‐II Risk Score, and RV Failure Risk Score from preoperative data and the APACHE III and Post Cardiac Surgery (POCAS) risk scores from postoperative data. Daily, maximum, and mean SOFA scores were calculated for the first 5 postoperative days. The area under receiver‐operator characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated to compare the scoring systems' ability to predict 30‐day, 90‐day, and 1‐year mortality. Results For the entire cohort, mortality was 5% at 30 days, 10% at 90 days, and 19% at 1 year. The Day 1 SOFA score had better discrimination for 30‐day mortality (AUC 0.77) than the preoperative risk scores or the APACHE III and POCAS postoperative scores. The maximum SOFA score had the best discrimination for 30‐day mortality (AUC 0.86), and the mean SOFA score had the best discrimination for 90‐day mortality (AUC 0.82) and 1‐year mortality (AUC 0.76). Conclusions We observed that postoperative mean and maximum SOFA scores in LVAD recipients predict short‐term and intermediate‐term mortality better than preoperative risk scores do. However, because preoperative and postoperative risk scores each contribute unique information, they are best used in concert to predict outcomes after LVAD implantation.

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.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiology residents’ experiences and perspectives about their programs may be helpful in improving training. The goals of this repeated cross-sectional survey study are to determine: (1) the most important factors residents consider in choosing an anesthesiology residency, (2) the aspects of the clinical base year that best prepare residents for anesthesia clinical training, and what could be improved, (3) whether residents are satisfied with their anesthesiology residency and what their primary struggles are, and (4) whether residents believe their residency prepares them for proficiency in the 6 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Core Competencies and for independent practice. METHODS: Anesthesiologists beginning their US residency training from 2013 to 2016 were invited to participate in anonymous, confidential, and voluntary self-administered online surveys. Resident cohort was defined by clinical anesthesia year 1, such that 9 survey administrations were included in this study—3 surveys for the 2013 and 2014 cohorts (clinical anesthesia years 1–3), 2 surveys for the 2015 cohort (clinical anesthesia years 1–2), and 1 survey for the 2016 cohort (clinical anesthesia year 1). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 36% (4707 responses to 12,929 invitations). On a 5-point Likert scale with 1 as “very unimportant” and 5 as “very important,” quality of clinical experience (4.7–4.8 among the cohorts) and departmental commitment to education (4.3–4.5) were rated as the most important factors in anesthesiologists’ choice of residency. Approximately 70% of first- and second-year residents agreed that their clinical base year prepared them well for anesthesiology residency, particularly clinical training experiences in critical care rotations, anesthesiology rotations, and surgery rotations/perioperative procedure management. Overall, residents were satisfied with their choice of anesthesiology specialty (4.4–4.5 on a 5-point scale among cohort-training levels) and their residency programs (4.0–4.1). The residency training experiences mostly met their expectations (3.8–4.0). Senior residents who reported any struggles highlighted academic more than interpersonal or technical difficulties. Senior residents generally agreed that the residency adequately prepared them for independent practice (4.1–4.4). Of the 6 ACGME Core Competencies, residents had the highest confidence in professionalism (4.7–4.9) and interpersonal and communication skills (4.6–4.8). Areas in residency that could be improved include the provision of an appropriate balance between education and service and allowance for sufficient time off to search and interview for a postresidency position. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiology residents in the United States indicated they most value quality of clinical training experiences and are generally satisfied with their choice of specialty and residency program.