Citations

Summary Background Filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) is an approved treatment for adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Aim To report integrated safety data from the phase 2b/3 SELECTION study (NCT02914522) and its ongoing long‐term extension study SELECTIONLTE (NCT02914535). Methods Safety outcomes were analysed in adults with moderately to severely active UC who received FIL200, filgotinib 100 mg (FIL100) or placebo once daily throughout the 11‐week SELECTION induction study, the 47‐week SELECTION maintenance study (if applicable) and SELECTIONLTE (if applicable). Exposure‐adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) per 100 censored patient‐years of exposure with 95% confidence intervals were reported for treatment‐emergent adverse events (AEs). Certain AE data were presented in subgroups, including age and prior biologic exposure status. Results This interim analysis included 1348 patients representing 3326.2 patient‐years of exposure. Baseline characteristics of patients entering SELECTION were similar across treatment groups. EAIRs for serious infection, thromboembolic events and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were consistently low across treatment groups. Most patients with MACE had cardiovascular risk factors. The EAIR for herpes zoster was numerically higher for FIL200 than for placebo. Infection incidences were numerically higher in biologic‐experienced than biologic‐naive patients. Higher incidences of certain AEs in patients 65 years of age or older were as expected. Four deaths occurred, including three cardiovascular deaths, none of which was considered related to filgotinib. Conclusion FIL200 and FIL100 were well tolerated with no unexpected safety signals in patients with moderately to severely active UC, regardless of previous biologic exposure or age. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers (NCT numbers) NCT02914522, NCT02914535.

Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) offers descriptions of competencies and milestones but does not provide standardized assessments to track trainee competency. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and special assessments (SAs) are emerging methods to assess the level of competency obtained by regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RAAPM) fellows. Methods A panel of RAAPM physicians with experience in education and competency assessment and one medical student were recruited to participate in a modified Delphi method with iterative rounds to reach consensus on: a list of EPAs, SAs, and procedural skills; detailed definitions for each EPA and SA; a mapping of the EPAs and SAs to the ACGME milestones; and a target level of entrustment for graduating US RAAPM fellows for each EPA and procedural skill. A gap analysis was performed and a heat map was created to cross-check the EPAs and SAs to the ACGME milestones. Results Participants in EPA and SA development included 19 physicians and 1 medical student from 18 different programs. The Delphi rounds yielded a final list of 23 EPAs, a defined entrustment scale, mapping of the EPAs to ACGME milestones, and graduation targets. A list of 73 procedural skills and 7 SAs were similarly developed. Discussion A list of 23 RAAPM EPAs, 73 procedural skills, and 7 SAs were created using a rigorous methodology to reach consensus. This framework can be utilized to help assess RAAPM fellows in the USA for competency and allow for meaningful performance feedback.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Anesthesiology administers the APPLIED Examination as a part of initial certification, which as of 2018 includes 2 components—the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE) and the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). The goal of this study is to investigate the measurement construct(s) of the APPLIED Examination to assess whether the SOE and the OSCE measure distinct constructs (ie, factors). METHODS: Exploratory item factor analysis of candidates’ performance ratings was used to determine the number of constructs, and confirmatory item factor analysis to estimate factor loadings within each construct and correlation(s) between the constructs. RESULTS: In exploratory item factor analysis, the log-likelihood ratio test and Akaike information criterion index favored the 3-factor model, with factors reflecting the SOE, OSCE Communication and Professionalism, and OSCE Technical Skills. The Bayesian information criterion index favored the 2-factor model, with factors reflecting the SOE and the OSCE. In confirmatory item factor analysis, both models suggest moderate correlation between the SOE factor and the OSCE factor; the correlation was 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.55) for the 3-factor model and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.54-0.64) for the 2-factor model. The factor loadings were lower for Technical Skills stations of the OSCE (ranging from 0.11 to 0.25) compared with those of the SOE and Communication and Professionalism stations of the OSCE (ranging from 0.36 to 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The analyses provide evidence that the SOE and the OSCE measure distinct constructs, supporting the rationale for administering both components of the APPLIED Examination for initial certification in anesthesiology.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiology residents’ experiences and perspectives about their programs may be helpful in improving training. The goals of this repeated cross-sectional survey study are to determine: (1) the most important factors residents consider in choosing an anesthesiology residency, (2) the aspects of the clinical base year that best prepare residents for anesthesia clinical training, and what could be improved, (3) whether residents are satisfied with their anesthesiology residency and what their primary struggles are, and (4) whether residents believe their residency prepares them for proficiency in the 6 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Core Competencies and for independent practice. METHODS: Anesthesiologists beginning their US residency training from 2013 to 2016 were invited to participate in anonymous, confidential, and voluntary self-administered online surveys. Resident cohort was defined by clinical anesthesia year 1, such that 9 survey administrations were included in this study—3 surveys for the 2013 and 2014 cohorts (clinical anesthesia years 1–3), 2 surveys for the 2015 cohort (clinical anesthesia years 1–2), and 1 survey for the 2016 cohort (clinical anesthesia year 1). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 36% (4707 responses to 12,929 invitations). On a 5-point Likert scale with 1 as “very unimportant” and 5 as “very important,” quality of clinical experience (4.7–4.8 among the cohorts) and departmental commitment to education (4.3–4.5) were rated as the most important factors in anesthesiologists’ choice of residency. Approximately 70% of first- and second-year residents agreed that their clinical base year prepared them well for anesthesiology residency, particularly clinical training experiences in critical care rotations, anesthesiology rotations, and surgery rotations/perioperative procedure management. Overall, residents were satisfied with their choice of anesthesiology specialty (4.4–4.5 on a 5-point scale among cohort-training levels) and their residency programs (4.0–4.1). The residency training experiences mostly met their expectations (3.8–4.0). Senior residents who reported any struggles highlighted academic more than interpersonal or technical difficulties. Senior residents generally agreed that the residency adequately prepared them for independent practice (4.1–4.4). Of the 6 ACGME Core Competencies, residents had the highest confidence in professionalism (4.7–4.9) and interpersonal and communication skills (4.6–4.8). Areas in residency that could be improved include the provision of an appropriate balance between education and service and allowance for sufficient time off to search and interview for a postresidency position. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiology residents in the United States indicated they most value quality of clinical training experiences and are generally satisfied with their choice of specialty and residency program.

BACKGROUND: A temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates that occurred around the turn of the millennium may have workforce implications. The aims of this study are to describe, between 2005 and 2015, (1) demographic changes in the workforce of physicians trained as anesthesiologists; (2) national and state densities of these physicians, as well as temporal changes in the densities; and (3) retention of medical licenses by mid- and later-career anesthesiologists. METHODS: Using records from the American Board of Anesthesiology and state medical and osteopathic boards, the numbers of licensed physicians aged 30–59 years who had completed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited anesthesiology residency training were calculated cross-sectionally for 2005, 2010, and 2015. Demographic trends were then described. Census data were used to calculate national and state densities of licensed physicians. Individual longitudinal data were used to describe retention of medical licenses among older physicians. RESULTS: The number of licensed physicians trained as anesthesiologists aged 30–59 years increased from 32,644 in 2005 to 36,543 in 2010 and 36,624 in 2015, representing a national density of 1.10, 1.18, and 1.14 per 10,000 population in those years, respectively. The density of anesthesiologists among states ranged from 0.37 to 3.10 per 10,000 population. The age distribution differed across the years. For example, anesthesiologists aged 40–49 years predominated in 2005 (47%), but by 2015, only 31% of anesthesiologists were aged 40–49 years. The proportion of female anesthesiologists grew from 22% in 2005, to 24% in 2010, and to 28% in 2015, particularly among early-career anesthesiologists. For anesthesiologists with licenses in 2005, the number who still had active licenses in 2015 decreased by 9.6% for those aged 45–49 years, by 14.1% for those aged 50–54 years, and by 19.7% for those aged 55–59 years. CONCLUSIONS: The temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates around the turn of the 21st century decreased the proportion of anesthesiologists who were midcareer as of 2015. This may affect the future availability of senior leaders as well as the future overall workforce in the specialty as older anesthesiologists retire. National efforts to plan for workforce needs should recognize the geographical variability in the distribution of anesthesiologists.

In 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) into its initial certification examination system. Previously, the ABA’s staged examination system consisted of 2 written examinations (the BASIC and ADVANCED examinations) and the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The OSCE and the existing SOE are now 2 separate components of the APPLIED Examination. This report presents the results of the first-year OSCE administration. A total of 1410 candidates took both the OSCE and the SOE in 2018. Candidate performance approximated a normal distribution for both the OSCE and the SOE, and was not associated with the timing of the examination, including day of the week, morning versus afternoon session, and order of the OSCE and the SOE. Practice-based Learning and Improvement was the most difficult station, while Application of Ultrasonography was the least difficult. The correlation coefficient between SOE and OSCE scores was 0.35 ([95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.30–0.39]; P < .001). Scores for the written ADVANCED Examination were modestly correlated with scores for the SOE ( r = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.25–0.34]; P < .001) and the OSCE ( r = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10–0.20]; P < .001). Most of the candidates who failed the SOE passed the OSCE, and most of the candidates who failed the OSCE passed the SOE. Of the 1410 candidates, 77 (5.5%) failed the OSCE, 155 (11.0%) failed the SOE, and 25 (1.8%) failed both. Thus, 207 (14.7%) failed at least 1 component of the APPLIED Examination. Adding an OSCE to a board certification examination system is feasible. Preliminary evidence indicates that the OSCE measures aspects of candidate abilities distinct from those measured by other examinations used for initial board certification.

BACKGROUND: In January 2016, as part of the Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology (MOCA) program, the American Board of Anesthesiology launched MOCA Minute, a web-based longitudinal assessment, to supplant the former cognitive examination. We investigated the association between participation and performance in MOCA Minute and disciplinary actions against medical licenses of anesthesiologists. METHODS: All anesthesiologists with time-limited certificates (ie, certified in 2000 or after) who were required to register for MOCA Minute in 2016 were followed up through December 31, 2016. The incidence of postcertification prejudicial license actions was compared between those who did and did not register and compared between registrants who did and did not meet the MOCA Minute performance standard. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of license actions was 1.2% (245/20,006) in anesthesiologists required to register for MOCA Minute. Nonregistration was associated with a higher incidence of license actions (hazard ratio, 2.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.15–4.00]). For the 18,534 (92.6%) who registered, later registration (after June 30, 2016) was associated with a higher incidence of license actions. In 2016, 16,308 (88.0%) anesthesiologists met the MOCA Minute performance standard. Of those not meeting the standard (n = 2226), most (n = 2093, 94.0%) failed because they did not complete the required 120 questions. Not meeting the standard was associated with a higher incidence of license actions (hazard ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.36–2.72]). CONCLUSIONS: Both timely participation and meeting performance standard in MOCA Minute are associated with a lower likelihood of being disciplined by a state medical board.

Abstract Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background This repeated cross-sectional survey study was conducted to determine the prevalence of, and factors associated with, burnout, distress, and depression among anesthesiology residents and first-year graduates. We hypothesized that heavy workload and student debt burden were associated with a higher risk of physician burnout, distress, and depression, and that perception of having adequate workplace resources, work–life balance, and social support were associated with a lower risk. Methods Physicians beginning U.S. anesthesiology residency between 2013 and 2016 were invited to take online surveys annually from their clinical anesthesia year 1 to 1 yr after residency graduation. The Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Physician Well-Being Index, and the Harvard Department of Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day Scale were used to measure burnout, distress, and depression, respectively. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine whether self-reported demographics, personal, and professional factors were associated with the risk of burnout, distress, and depression. Results The response rate was 36% (5,295 of 14,529). The prevalence of burnout, distress, and depression was 51% (2,531 of 4,966), 32% (1,575 of 4,941), and 12% (565 of 4,840), respectively. Factors associated with a lower risk of all three outcomes included respondents’ perceived workplace resource availability, (odds ratio = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.57] for burnout; 0.51 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.56] for distress; 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.60] for depression) and perceived ability to maintain work–life balance (0.61 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.67] for burnout; 0.50 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.55] for distress; 0.58 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.65] for depression). A greater number of hours worked per week and a higher amount of student debt were associated with a higher risk of distress and depression, but not burnout. Conclusions Burnout, distress, and depression are notable among anesthesiology residents. Perceived institutional support, work–life balance, strength of social support, workload, and student debt impact physician well-being.