Starr, Stephanie R.

Purpose To identify approaches to operationalizing the development of competence in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. Method The authors reviewed all 25 “Milestone Project” documents available on the ACGME Web site on September 11, 2013, using an iterative process to identify approaches to operationalizing the development of competence in the milestones associated with each of 601 subcompetencies. Results Fifteen approaches were identified. Ten focused on attributes and activities of the learner, such as their ability to perform different, increasingly difficult tasks (304/601; 51%), perform a task better and faster (171/601; 45%), or perform a task more consistently (123/601; 20%). Two approaches focused on context, inferring competence from performing a task in increasingly difficult situations (236/601; 29%) or an expanding scope of engagement (169/601; 28%). Two used socially defined indicators of competence such as progression from “learning” to “teaching,” “leading,” or “role modeling” (271/601; 45%). One approach focused on the supervisor’s role, inferring competence from a decreasing need for supervision or assistance (151/601; 25%). Multiple approaches were often combined within a single set of milestones (mean 3.9, SD 1.6). Conclusions Initial ACGME milestones operationalize the development of competence in many ways. These findings offer insights into how physicians understand and assess the developmental progression of competence and an opportunity to consider how different approaches may affect the validity of milestone-based assessments. The results of this analysis can inform the work of educators developing or revising milestones, interpreting milestone data, or creating assessment tools to inform milestone-based performance measures.

Educators, policy makers, and health systems leaders are calling for significant reform of undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) programs to meet the evolving needs of the health care system. Nationally, several schools have initiated innovative curricula in both classroom and workplace learning experiences to promote education in health systems science (HSS), which includes topics such as value-based care, health system improvement, and population and public health. However, the successful implementation of HSS curricula across schools is challenged by issues of curriculum design, assessment, culture, and accreditation, among others. In this report of a working conference using thematic analysis of workshop recommendations and experiences from 11 U.S. medical schools, the authors describe seven priority areas for the successful integration and sustainment of HSS in educational programs, and associated challenges and potential solutions. In 2015, following regular HSS workgroup phone calls and an Accelerating Change in Medical Education consortium-wide meeting, the authors identified the priority areas: partner with licensing, certifying, and accrediting bodies; develop comprehensive, standardized, and integrated curricula; develop, standardize, and align assessments; improve the UME to GME transition; enhance teachers’ knowledge and skills, and incentives for teachers; demonstrate value added to the health system; and address the hidden curriculum. These priority areas and their potential solutions can be used by individual schools and HSS education collaboratives to further outline and delineate the steps needed to create, deliver, study, and sustain effective HSS curricula with an eye toward integration with the basic and clinical sciences curricula.

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.

Purpose The authors performed a review of 30 Accelerating Change in Medical Education full grant submissions and an analysis of the health systems science (HSS)-related curricula at the 11 grant recipient schools to develop a potential comprehensive HSS curricular framework with domains and subcategories. Method In phase 1, to identify domains, grant submissions were analyzed and coded using constant comparative analysis. In phase 2, a detailed review of all existing and planned syllabi and curriculum documents at the grantee schools was performed, and content in the core curricular domains was coded into subcategories. The lead investigators reviewed and discussed drafts of the categorization scheme, collapsed and combined domains and subcategories, and resolved disagreements via group discussion. Results Analysis yielded three types of domains: core, cross-cutting, and linking. Core domains included health care structures and processes; health care policy, economics, and management; clinical informatics and health information technology; population and public health; value-based care; and health system improvement. Cross-cutting domains included leadership and change agency; teamwork and interprofessional education; evidence-based medicine and practice; professionalism and ethics; and scholarship. One linking domain was identified: systems thinking. Conclusions This broad framework aims to build on the traditional definition of systems-based practice and highlight the need for medical and other health professions schools to better align education programs with the anticipated needs of the systems in which students will practice. HSS will require a critical investigation into existing curricula to determine the most efficient methods for integration with the basic and clinical sciences.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pediatrics has embraced technology-enhanced simulation (TES) as an educational modality, but its effectiveness for pediatric education remains unclear. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics and evaluate the effectiveness of TES for pediatric education. METHODS: This review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011 and an updated Medline search through October 2013 were conducted. Original research articles in any language evaluating the use of TES for educating health care providers at any stage, where the content solely focuses on patients 18 years or younger, were selected. Reviewers working in duplicate abstracted information on learners, clinical topic, instructional design, study quality, and outcomes. We coded skills (simulated setting) separately for time and nontime measures and similarly classified patient care behaviors and patient effects. RESULTS: We identified 57 studies (3666 learners) using TES to teach pediatrics. Effect sizes (ESs) were pooled by using a random-effects model. Among studies comparing TES with no intervention, pooled ESs were large for outcomes of knowledge, nontime skills (eg, performance in simulated setting), behaviors with patients, and time to task completion (ES = 0.80–1.91). Studies comparing the use of high versus low physical realism simulators showed small to moderate effects favoring high physical realism (ES = 0.31–0.70). CONCLUSIONS: TES for pediatric education is associated with large ESs in comparison with no intervention. Future research should include comparative studies that identify optimal instructional methods and incorporate pediatric-specific issues into educational interventions.