Sims, Charles R.

Objective The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced Milestones in 2013 to aid the assessment of residents and fellows within the framework of the six core competencies of practice. Feedback from program directors and trainees, clinical competency committee processes, and milestone reporting identified the need for modification. This study represents a consensus-driven educational quality improvement initiative which describes the development, revision process, and key features of Critical Care Anesthesiology (CCA) Milestones 2.0, and provides lessons learned in adapting competency-based assessment to a one-year subspecialty training program. Methods A Critical Care Anesthesiology (CCA) working group was convened by the ACGME in 2021 to revise the content, enhance relevance to training, clarify goals for program leadership, and develop supplemental resources to aid implementation. The group consisted of a diverse group of experienced educators and clinicians from CCA fellowship programs nationwide. A modified Delphi process, stakeholder feedback, Milestones performance data, and public comment were used to iteratively revise Milestones. In addition, a supplemental guide was developed to provide examples and resources to aid the Milestones assessment. Conclusion The Milestones 2.0 simplify the use, implementation, and interpretation of this competency framework for program directors, trainees, faculty, and the American Board of Anesthesiology. The resulting CCA Milestones 2.0 provide updated specialty-specific, competency-based behavioral anchors to guide the developmental progression of competencies and outcomes for CCA fellows and facilitate the design of curricula and the advancement of CCA training programs. Lessons learned in the development of the CCA Milestones 2.0 include the importance of simplification, behavioral specificity, and supplemental.

Introduction and importance: Reports are limited on video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung malignancy of patients with situs inversus totalis (SIT). Patients with SIT have significant anatomic differences with implications that are important for surgery, anesthesia, and nursing to understand in order to provide care for this patient population. Case presentation: A 64-year-old man with SIT and lung adenocarcinoma needed flexible bronchoscopy and wedge resection of a 9×8 mm adenocarcinoma in the right upper lobe and underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Clinical discussion: Preoperative planning, including collaboration with the surgical team, allowed safe monitoring, induction of anesthesia, and airway isolation in this patient allowing them to have successful resection of their pulmonary malignancy. Postoperative care was enhanced by detailed communication and understanding of the patient’s anatomy and implications of this condition for post anesthesia care unit nursing care. Conclusion: Patients with rare clinical conditions and backgrounds may require surgical and anesthetic intervention. The authors describe important anesthetic considerations of preoperative evaluation, airway management, cardiac monitoring, and vascular access that should be noted and taken into account for patients with SIT. Proper preparation, planning, and communication allow for patients with SIT to safely undergo surgical procedures.

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: Kidney transplant is the most common transplant operation performed in the United States. Although various approaches to pain management have been described, the optimal analgesic strategy remains undefined. Specifically, the role of intrathecal opioids in this patient population has not been comprehensively evaluated. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort design, data from kidney transplant operations at a single tertiary care medical center between August 1, 2017, and July 31, 2022, were extracted. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to assess differences in clinical outcomes based on the presence or absence of intrathecal opioid administration before surgical incision. The primary outcome was total opioid exposure expressed in milligram morphine equivalents (MME) in the first 72 hours postoperatively, with secondary outcomes including total MME (intraoperative plus postoperative MME, postoperative pain scores, and the presence of postoperative nausea/vomiting [PONV], pruritus, or adverse events). RESULTS: A total of 1014 kidney transplants in 1012 unique patients were included, with 411 (41%) receiving intrathecal opioids preoperatively. Hydromorphone was the intrathecal opioid used in all cases with median dose of 100 µg (interquartile range [IQR], 100, 100; range 50–200). Subjects receiving intrathecal opioids had significantly lower postoperative opioid requirements at 72 hours (30 [0–68] vs 64 [22, 120] MME), with ratio of geometric means in the IPTW analysis (ratio of geometric means 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26–0.43; P < .001). Similar findings were observed for total opioids (45 [30–75] vs 75 [60–90] MME; ratio of geometric means 0.58, 95% CI, 0.54–0.63; P < .001). Maximum reported pain scores in the intrathecal group were lower at 24 hours (4 [2–7] vs 7 [5, 8]; OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.21–0.37 for experiencing a higher pain score with intrathecal opioids, P < .001) and 72 hours (6 [4–7] vs 7 [5–8]; OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31–0.54; P < .001). Patients receiving intrathecal opioids were more likely to experience PONV (225 of 411 [55%] vs 232 of 603 [38%]; OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.63–2.86; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal opioid administration was associated with improved pain outcomes in patients undergoing kidney transplantation, including lower opioid requirements and pain scores through 72 hours. However, this was accompanied by an increased risk of PONV.

Case: A 76-year-old woman with multiple myeloma and osteoporosis presented with right hip pain and an impending atypical femoral fracture in the setting of chronic bisphosphonate use. After preoperative medical optimization, she was scheduled for prophylactic intramedullary nail fixation. Intraoperatively, the patient experienced episodes of severe bradycardia and asystole associated with intramedullary reaming, which ceased after distal venting of the femur. No additional intraoperative or postoperative complications were encountered, and the patient recovered uneventfully. Conclusion: Femoral canal venting may be an appropriate intervention for similar transient dysrhythmias caused by intramedullary reaming.

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.