Long, Timothy R.

Background: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) case log system establishes minimum clinical experiences for anesthesiology residency. While core program requirements were last updated in 2016, case log minimums themselves have not undergone a major revision in approximately two decades. Consequently, current requirements may not fully reflect changes in anesthetic practice and the evolving scope of perioperative medicine. In anticipation of major ACGME revisions in 2027, this study aimed to develop consensus-driven recommendations for modernizing residency case logs. Methods: A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted with a nationally representative panel of 60 stakeholders, including anesthesiology residency program directors and academic and private practice anesthesiologists. Panelists evaluated a comprehensive list of potential case categories across three domains: technical skills, surgical case characteristics, and patient demographics. In Round 1, panelists proposed minimum numbers or suggested that no requirement was necessary. Rounds 2 and 3 utilized iterative feedback to determine consensus on the necessity of requirements and specific minimum thresholds. Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds agreement. Results: Sixty invited experts completed all three rounds (100% response rate). The panel reached consensus to recommend new minimum requirements across several areas not currently tracked with minimums, including arterial lines (40), central lines (20), fiberoptic intubation (10), one-lung ventilation (10), neuromonitoring (10), POCUS (10 Cardiac, 10 Lung), and NORA (20 cases). Regarding existing requirements, consensus was reached to recommend increasing total peripheral nerve blocks from 40 to 60, with added requirements for anatomic specificity, and cardiac case minimums from 20 to 25. The panel also established consensus definitions for life-threatening pathologies to standardize reporting. The panel did not achieve consensus on several areas, including, for example, whether a minimum requirement for patients younger than 3 months should be maintained. Conclusion: These findings provide stakeholder-validated recommendations to inform upcoming ACGME requirement revisions.

BACKGROUND: Increased specialty competitiveness, alongside the inception of virtual interviews, has increased the number of applications submitted to the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) in anesthesiology. ERAS introduced signals to provide applicants with a means to demonstrate interest in a select group of residency programs. In the 2023 to 2024 application cycle, anesthesiology applicants had the opportunity to send 5 gold and 10 silver signals in a tiered system. METHODS: This multicenter, cross-sectional (exempt) research survey was created by members of the executive council of the Association of Anesthesiology Core Program Directors (AACPD) and housed and distributed through REDCap and the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Publicly available contact information of anesthesiology core program directors was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website and membership roster of the AACPD. In total, 174 anesthesiology programs were identified. A survey invitation was distributed on March 12, 2024, to all programs via e-mail with reminders. The survey closed on April 30, 2024. Survey responses were collected anonymously, with instructions to provide 1 response per program. All statistical summaries and analyses were performed using SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute). RESULTS: The survey was sent to all 174 identified programs, with a response rate of 48.9%. Small programs were defined as having <44 residents, medium 44 to 62 residents, and large >62 residents. Small programs received significantly fewer applications (median 1255) than medium (1420) and large (1558) programs ( P = .0005). There was a statistically significant difference in the number of gold signals received based on program size, with large programs receiving significantly more than medium (169 vs 116, P = .0238) or small programs (168 vs 71, P < .0001). Applicants sending gold signals were more likely to receive an interview compared to those who sent silver signals (56.7% vs 31%, P ≤ .0001). Of the those interviewed, applicants who sent gold signals comprised 42% (28.7%–52.6%), whereas applicants who sent silver signals comprised 45.5% (33%–54.7%). Applicants who did not send a program signal but signaled geographically made up a smaller portion of the interview group at 3% (0%–15.4%). The percentage of matched residents sending gold signals made up 66.7% (47.1%–82.4%) of a program’s match list, whereas those sending silver signals were 25% (11.1%–33.3%) of the matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiology applicants who sent program signals were selected for a large majority of available interview positions, and interviewed applicants who submitted gold and silver signals comprised the vast majority of matched resident cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Global medical education is gradually moving toward more comprehensive implementations of a competency-based education (CBE) model. Elimination of standard time-based training and adoption of time-variable training (competency-based time-variable training [CB-TVT]) is one of the final stages of implementation of CBE. While CB-TVT has been implemented in some programs outside the United States, residency programs in the United States are still exploring this approach to training. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) are encouraging member boards and residency review committees to consider innovative ways programs could implement CB-TVT. The goals of this study were to (1) identify potential problems with the implementation of CB-TVT in anesthesiology residency training, (2) rank the importance of the problems and the perceived difficulty of solving them, and (3) develop proposed solutions to the identified problems. METHODS: Study participants were recruited from key stakeholder groups in anesthesiology education, including current or former program directors, department chairs, residents, fellows, American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) board members, ACGME residency review committee members or ACGME leaders, designated institutional officials, residency program coordinators, clinical operations directors, and leaders of large anesthesiology community practice groups. This study was conducted in 2 phases. In phase 1, survey questionnaires were iteratively distributed to participants to identify problems with the implementation of CB-TVT. Participants were also asked to rank the perceived importance and difficulty of each problem and to identify relevant stakeholder groups that would be responsible for solving each problem. In phase 2, surveys focused on identifying potential solutions for problems identified in phase 1. RESULTS: A total of 36 stakeholders identified 39 potential problems, grouped into 7 major categories, with the implementation of CB-TVT in anesthesiology residency training. Of the 39 problems, 19 (48.7%) were marked as important or very important on a 5-point scale and 12 of 19 (63.2%) of the important problems were marked as difficult or very difficult to solve on a 5-point scale. Stakeholders proposed 165 total solutions to the identified problems. CONCLUSIONS: CB-TVT is a promising educational model for anesthesiology residency, which potentially results in learner flexibility, individualization of curricula, and utilization of competencies to determine learner advancement. Because of the potential problems with the implementation of CB-TVT, it is important for future pilot implementations of CB-TVT to document realized problems, efficacy of solutions, and effects on educational outcomes to justify the burden of implementing CB-TVT.

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 Background Since the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) established the designated institutional official (DIO) role in 1998, there have been major changes in sponsoring institutions (SIs) and DIO responsibilities. Yet there remains a large gap in our knowledge regarding baseline SI and DIO characteristics as well as a need for institutions wanting to increase diversity in the DIO role and other leadership positions within the medical education community. Objective We sought to characterize demographics of DIOs and the SIs they oversee. Methods We identified SIs and DIOs on the ACGME website on February 15, 2020. Reviewed data included SI accreditation status, number of programs and resident/fellow positions, and DIO characteristics. Results We identified 831 SIs. SIs with continued accreditation sponsored more programs (median 4.0) than SIs with initial accreditation (median 1.0, P &lt; .001). DIO age ranged from 29–81 years (median 57 years). Two-hundred eighty-three of 831 (34%) DIOs were women. Of 576 DIOs with known academic rank, 356 (62%) DIOs held senior academic rank. A higher proportion of male DIOs had senior academic rank (68% vs 52%; OR 1.90 [95% CI 1.34–2.70]; P &lt; .001) and professor rank (39% vs 24%; OR 2.01 [95% CI 1.38–2.94]; P &lt; .001) compared to female DIOs. Female gender was associated with a greater number of ACGME-accredited programs and filled resident/fellow positions per SI (P &lt; .001 for both). Conclusions This study describes characteristics of DIOs and SIs and offers insights for those pursuing a DIO position.

Study Design. Case–control analysis and systematic literature review. Objective. To illustrate the prognosis and perioperative risk factors associated with this condition. Summary of Background Data. Ischemic optic neuropathy (ION) is the most common pathological diagnosis underlying postoperative vision loss. It comes in two primary forms—anterior (AION)—affecting the optic disc or posterior (PION) affecting the optic nerve proximal to the disc. Spine surgery remains one of the largest sources of acute perioperative visual loss. Methods. We performed a 1:4 case–control analysis (by age and year of surgery) for patients with ION and those who didn’t develop ION following spine surgery at our institution. A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, Scopus from inception to September 2017 as also performed. Results. We identified 12 cases from our institution. Comparison to 48 matched controls revealed fusion, higher number of operative levels, blood loss, and change in hemoglobin, hematocrit to be significantly associated with ION. Majority were diagnosed with PION (83%, 10/12) and had bilateral presentation (75%, 9/12). Only 30% patients (3/10) demonstrated improvement in visual acuity while the rest remained either unchanged (40%, 4/10) or worsened (20%, 2/10) at last follow-up. Literature review identified 182 cases from 42 studies. Posterior ischemic optic neuropathy (PION) was found in 58.7% (114/194) of cases, anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (AION) in 17% (33/19) and unspecified ION in 24% (47/194). PION was associated with higher odds of severe visual deficit at immediate presentation (odds ratio [OR]: 6.45, confidence interval [CI]: 1.04–54.3, P = 0.04) and last follow-up. Conclusion. PION is the most common cause of vision loss following spine surgery and causes more severe visual deficits compared with AION. Prone spine surgery especially multi-level fusions with longer operative time, higher blood loss, and intraoperative hypotension are most associated with the development of this devastating complication. Level of Evidence: 3

ABSTRACT Background The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) is an innovative element of the ACGME's new accreditation system. To date, little information has been collected regarding the value of CLER. Objective The purpose of this study is to collect information on designated institutional officials' (DIOs') perspectives about the initial CLER visits conducted at their institutions. Methods The authors created and distributed a survey to DIOs about their initial CLER visits. Demographic data were compared across survey responses with Spearman's rank correlation and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results The authors received responses from 63% of DIOs (186 of 297) at institutions that participated in the initial CLER visits, with 88% (164 of 186) having served as DIO during the visit. Seventy-two percent (114 of 158) reported institutional changes to address CLER focus areas prior to the visit, yet only 32% (51 of 157) reported that additional resources were allocated to these areas after the site visit. Sixty-five percent (102 of 156) reported institutional executive leadership was positive about participating in CLER; 85% (134 of 158) reported that ACGME conducted the visits efficiently; 84% (133 of 158) reported that the site visit accurately assessed the institution's performance in the CLER focus areas; and 60% (93 of 156) reported CLER provided high-value information. Conclusion Survey results from DIOs suggest that CLER is an effective mechanism to improve the learning environment. Common concerns included limited advance notice for the site visit and disruptions of clinical practice.