Carney, Patricia A.

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.

Purpose To examine validity evidence for a standardized patient scenario assessing medical students’ ability to promote value using patient-centered communication (in response to a patient requesting an unnecessary test) and to explore the potential effect of various implementation and curricular factors on student scores. Method Third-year medical students (N = 516) from 5 U.S. MD-granting medical schools completed the communication scenario between 2014 and 2017 as part of a larger objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Centralized raters assessed performance using an 11-item checklist. The authors collected multiple sources of validity evidence. Results The mean checklist score was 0.85 (standard deviation 0.09). Interrater reliability for checklist scores was excellent (0.87, 95% confidence interval = 0.78–0.93). Generalizability and Phi-coefficients were, respectively, 0.65 and 0.57. Scores decreased as the number of OSCE stations increased ( r = −0.15, P = .001) and increased when they were used for summative purposes ( r = 0.26, P < .001). Scores were not associated with curricular time devoted to high-value care ( r = 0.02, P = .67) and decreased when more clerkships were completed before the assessment ( r = −0.12, P = .006). Conclusions This multisite study provides validity evidence supporting the use of scenario scores to assess the ability of medical students to promote value in clinical encounters using patient-centered communication. Findings illuminate the potential effect of OSCE structure and purpose on student performance and suggest clerkship learning experiences may not reinforce what students are taught in the formal curriculum regarding high-value care. Devoting more time to the topic appears insufficient to counteract this erosion.

Purpose To examine medical student attitudes toward cost-conscious care and whether regional health care intensity is associated with reported exposure to physician role-modeling behaviors related to cost-conscious care. Method Students at 10 U.S. medical schools were surveyed in 2015. Thirty-five items assessed attitudes toward, perceived barriers to and consequences of, and observed physician role-modeling behaviors related to cost-conscious care (using scales for cost-conscious and potentially wasteful behaviors; Cronbach alphas of 0.82 and 0.81, respectively). Regional health care intensity was measured using Dartmouth Atlas End-of-Life Chronic Illness Care data: ratio of physician visits per decedent compared with the U.S. average, ratio of specialty to primary care physician visits per decedent, and hospital care intensity index. Results Of 5,992 students invited, 3,395 (57%) responded. Ninety percent (2,640/2,932) agreed physicians have a responsibility to contain costs. However, 48% (1,1416/2,960) thought ordering a test is easier than explaining why it is unnecessary, and 58% (1,685/2,928) agreed ordering fewer tests will increase the risk of malpractice litigation. In adjusted linear regression analyses, students in higher-health-care-intensity regions reported observing significantly fewer cost-conscious role-modeling behaviors: For each one-unit increase in the three health care intensity measures, scores on the 21-point cost-conscious role-modeling scale decreased by 4.4 (SE 0.7), 3.2 (0.6), and 3.9 (0.6) points, respectively (all P < .001). Conclusions Medical students endorse barriers to cost-conscious care and encounter conflicting role-modeling behaviors, which are related to regional health care intensity. Enhancing role modeling in the learning environment may help prepare future physicians to address health care costs.