Citations

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.

Importance In 2022, the US House of Representatives passed a bipartisan resolution (House of Representatives Resolution 1118 at the 117th Congress [2021-2022]) calling for meaningful nutrition education for medical trainees. This was prompted by increasing health care spending attributed to the growing prevalence of nutrition-related diseases and the substantial federal funding via Medicare that supports graduate medical education. In March 2023, medical education professional organizations agreed to identify nutrition competencies for medical education. Objective To recommend nutrition competencies for inclusion in medical education to improve patient and population health. Evidence Review The research team conducted a rapid literature review to identify existing nutrition-related competencies published between July 2013 and July 2023. Additional competencies were identified from learning objectives in selected nutrition, culinary medicine, and teaching kitchen curricula; dietetic core competencies; and research team–generated de novo competencies. An expert panel of 22 nutrition subject matter experts and 15 residency program directors participated in a modified Delphi process and completed 4 rounds of voting to reach consensus on recommended nutrition competencies, the level of medical education at which they should be included, and recommendations for monitoring implementation and evaluation of these competencies. Findings A total of 15 articles met inclusion criteria for competency extraction and yielded 187 competencies. Through review of gray literature and other sources, researchers identified 167 additional competencies for a total of 354 competencies. These competencies were compiled and refined prior to voting. After 4 rounds of voting, 36 competencies were identified for recommendation: 30 at both undergraduate and graduate levels, 2 at the undergraduate level only, and 4 at the graduate level only. Competencies fell into the following nutrition-related themes: foundational nutrition knowledge, assessment and diagnosis, communication skills, public health, collaborative support and treatment for specific conditions, and indications for referral. A total of 36 panelists (97%) recommended nutrition competencies be assessed as part of licensing and board certification examinations. Conclusions and Relevance These competencies represent a US-based effort to use a modified Delphi process to establish consensus on nutrition competencies for medical students and physician trainees. These competencies will require an iterative process of institutional prioritization, refinement, and inclusion in current and future educational curricula as well as licensure and certification examinations.

Introduction: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology first developed milestones for the clinical neurophysiology (CNP) fellowship in 2015. The milestones provide a comprehensive evaluation of the fellow's development based on six domains of competency. Here, we describe the development of a new set of milestones for CNP fellowship with level 1 as the incoming level, level 4 as the goal for graduation, and level 5 as the aspirational level that may not be achieved. Methods: Committee members were nominated or volunteered to participate in the milestones update. Milestone development began with the creation of a shared mental model of the ideal skills and knowledge a graduating CNP fellow should attain. Results: The CNP committee met virtually 7 times for a total of 14 meeting hours. Nine Patient Care and five Medical Knowledge milestones evolved from the seven Patient Care and six Medical Knowledge milestones that were in the first iteration. The committee incorporated 11 “Harmonized Milestones” into the revision and a supplemental guide was created. Conclusions: The revised Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones for CNP fellowship contain important updates that program directors should review against their curricula to identify any gaps in learning. Program leadership should take note of two new Patient Care milestones for telemedicine and intraoperative monitoring. Clinical neurophysiology fellowships are not designed to provide level 4 competency across all milestones. The revised milestones should be viewed within the context of an individual program's goals.

The evolution of medical education, from a time-based to a competency-based platform, began nearly 30 years ago and continues to slowly take shape. The development of valid and reproducible assessment tools is the first step. Medical educators across specialties acknowledge the challenges and remain motivated to develop a relevant, generalizable, and measurable system. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) remains committed to its responsibility to the public by assuring that the process and outcome of graduate medical education in the nation’s residency programs produce competent, safe, and compassionate doctors. The Milestones Project is the ACGME’s current strategy in the evolution to a competency-based system, which allows each specialty to develop its own set of subcompetencies and 5-level progression, or milestones, along a continuum of novice to expert. The education community has now had nearly 5 years of experience with these rubrics. While not perfect, Milestones 1.0 provided important foundational information and insights. The first iteration of the Anesthesiology Milestones highlighted some mismatch between subcompetencies and current and future clinical practices. They have also highlighted challenges with assessment and evaluation of learners, and the need for faculty development tools. Committed to an iterative process, the ACGME assembled representatives from stakeholder groups within the Anesthesiology community to develop the second generation of Milestones. This special article describes the foundational data from Milestones 1.0 that was useful in the development process of Milestones 2.0, the rationale behind the important changes, and the additional tools made available with this iteration.

Abstract The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones are a systematic assessment framework for medical trainees within the six core competencies of practice. Their use by internal medicine subspecialties, including semiannual reports to the ACGME, was mandated beginning in 2014. The Milestones, which were based on specific, observable behaviors, improved upon the prior subjective, global comparisons of each fellow with an “average” fellow in his or her field and served the goals of competency-based medical education. However, the original set of Milestones has proven challenging to apply and interpret. Part of the challenge stems from the use of identical Milestones across all medicine subspecialties, which led to unclear relevance of the patient care and medical knowledge domains to the practice of pulmonary and critical care. This also precluded their use for individualized feedback or development of a learning plan for fellows. In addition, verbose behavioral descriptors, which were designed to provide specificity, ultimately led to rater fatigue among assessors and clinical competency committees. Therefore, the ACGME convened committees for each of the medical subspecialties to revise the original Milestones in an effort to improve subspecialty relevance, minimize educational jargon, and simplify the current iteration. New patient care and medical knowledge Milestones were created to be subspecialty specific and improve utility. The remaining four Milestones were developed as a common set of shorter Milestones, harmonized across specialties. For pulmonary, critical care, and combined fellowship programs, the resulting Milestones 2.0 aims to simplify the use, implementation, and interpretation of this framework for program directors, trainees, and society.

Purpose To identify common and overlapping themes among the interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI), professionalism (PROF), and systems-based practice (SBP) milestones of the transitional year and 26 specialties. Method In May 2017, milestones were accessed from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education specialties website. A thematic analysis of the ICS, PBLI, PROF, and SBP milestones was performed to determine unique and common themes across these competencies and across specialties. Keywords from the common program requirements were initially applied as codes to the milestones. Codes were then grouped into common themes. Results Twenty-two themes were identified: 15 (68%) were unique to a given competency (3 related to ICS, 4 related to PBLI, 5 related to PROF, and 3 related to SBP), and 7 (32%) appeared in the milestones of more than one core competency. Eleven themes (50%) were used by 20 or more specialties, and 6 themes (27%) by 10 or fewer specialties. No theme was present across all specialties. Conclusions The ICS, PBLI, PROF, and SBP milestones contain multiple themes with areas of overlap among these four competencies and substantial variability across specialties. This variability may create differential expectations of residents across specialties, complicate faculty development, and make sharing assessment tools difficult. The thematic analysis provides important insights into how individual specialties interpret and operationalize the ICS, PBLI, PROF, and SBP competency domains and can inform future revisions of milestones to enable harmonization and shared understanding of these competencies across specialties where appropriate.