ACGME NAS Design Updates. Joseph Gilhooly, MD Chair, RC for Pediatrics Caroline Fischer, MBA Executive Director, RC for Pediatrics

Transcription

1 ACGME NAS Design Updates Joseph Gilhooly, MD Chair, RC for Pediatrics Caroline Fischer, MBA Executive Director, RC for Pediatrics

2 Goals of the Next Accreditation System (NAS) To begin the realization of the promise of the Outcomes Project To free good programs to innovate To assist poor programs in improving To reduce the burden of accreditation To provide accountability for outcomes (in tandem with ABMS) to the public

3 Attributes of the NAS Foster innovation Reward excellence Less frequent revision of standards (10 years) Continuous accreditation Less frequent, more rigorous self-study site visits for successful program Concentrate on problem programs to rapidly enhance performance/outcomes Evolution of the role of the site visitor

4 How is NAS Different? Continuous accreditation versus current biopsy 10 year self-study visit, instead of site visits determined by cycle length Annual data collection and analysis Resident and faculty surveys Milestones data Board pass rates And Elimination of the PIF for site visits of accredited programs

5 NAS Timeline Seven specialties/rrc s begin training July 2012 Pediatrics Internal Medicine Diagnostic Radiology Emergency Medicine Orthopedic Surgery Neurological Surgery Urological Surgery Sponsor Visit Program (CLER) begins beta testing Fall 2012 The Next Accreditation System begins July 2013 These seven specialties go live July 2013 All specialties/rrc s using the Next Accreditation System 7/2014

6 NAS Program Review RC hiatus from program review - now through June, 2013, except: Programs with a short cycle (two years or less) Proposed adverse actions Subspecialty programs with initial accreditation that are due for a site visit

7 NAS: Continuous accreditation model Annual review of the following performance indicators: 1) Program Attrition 2) Program Changes 3) Scholarly Activity 4) Board Pass Rate 5) Clinical Experience 6) Resident Survey 7) Faculty Survey 8) Milestones 9) CLER site visit data Collected now as part of the program s annual ADS update. ADS streamlined this year: 33 fewer questions & more multiple choice or Y/N Boards provide annually Collected now as part of annual administration of survey

8 Performance Indicator #1: Program Attrition General Definition: Composite variable that measures the degree of personnel and trainee change within the program. How measured: Has the program experienced any of the following: Change in PD? Decrease in core faculty? Residents withdraw/transfer/dismissed? Change in Chair? DIO Change? CEO Change?

9 Performance Indictor # 2: Program Changes General Definition: Composite variable that measures the degree of structural changes to the program. How measured: Has the program experienced any of the following: Participating sites added or removed? Resident complement changes? Block diagram changes? Major structural change? Sponsorship change? GMEC reporting structural change?

10 Performance Indicator # 3: Scholarly Activity General Definition: Indicator that measures scholarly productivity within a program for faculty and for learners. ACGME will eliminate faculty CVs and replace them with a new table to collect scholarly activity information. Primarily text that is not quantifiable Currently used by RC only at time of site visit Takes up significant amounts of space ACGME database 35% of support calls related to faculty CVs Expectations for faculty and learners w/ regard to scholarly activity will be different for core and subspecialty programs.

11 Performance Indicator # 3: Scholarly Activity: Faculty Pub Med Ids (assigned by PubMed) for articles published between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012. List up to 4. Number of abstracts, posters, and presentations given at international, national, or regional meetings between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012 Number of other presentations given (grand rounds, invited professorships), materials developed (such as computerbased modules), or work presented in non-peer review publications between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012 Number of chapters or textbooks published between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012 Number of grants for which faculty member had a leadership role (PI, Co- PI, or site director) between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012 Had an active leadership role (such as serving on committees or governing boards) in national medical organizations or served as reviewer or editorial board member for a peer-reviewed journal between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012 Between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012, held responsibility for seminars, conference series, or course coordination (such as arrangement of presentations and speakers, organization of materials, assessment of participants' performance) for any didactic training within the sponsoring institution or program. This includes training modules for medical students, residents, fellows and other health professionals. This does not include single presentations such as individual lectures or conferences. Faculty Member PMID 1 PMID PMID 2 3 PMID 4 Conference Presentations Other Presentations Chapters / Textbooks Grant Leadership Leadership or Peer- Review Role Teaching Formal Courses John Smith Y N activities in the table above.

12 Performance Indicator # 3: Scholarly Activity: Residents Pub Med Ids (assigned by PubMed) for articles published between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012. List up to 3. Number of abstracts, posters, and presentations given at international, national, or regional meetings between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012 Lecture, or presentation (such Participated in funded or Number of chapters as grand rounds or case non-funded basic or textbooks presentations) of at least 30 science or clinical published between minute duration within the outcomes research 7/1/2011 and sponsoring institution or project between 6/30/2012 program between 7/1/2011 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012 and 6/30/2012 Resident PMID 1 PMID 2 PMID 3 Conference Presentations Chapters / Textbooks Participated in research Teaching / Presentations June Smith N Y

13 Performance Indicator # 4: Board Pass Rates Core Peds V.C.1.c).(1) At least 80% of those who completed the program in the preceding five years should have taken the certifying examination. V.C.1.c).(2) At least 70% of a program s graduates from the preceding five years who are taking the certifying examination for the first time should have passed.

14 Performance Indicator # 4: Board Pass Rates - Subspecialty V.C.3. A program will be judged deficient if, over a six year period, fewer than 75% of fellows eligible for the certifying examination take it and of those who take it, fewer than 75% pass it on the first attempt. The Review Committee will take into consideration noticeable improvements or declines during this same period. An exception may be made for programs with small numbers of fellows. A subspecialty program director will be expected to provide the requested information at the time of each review.

15 Performance Indicator # 5: Clinical Experience Data General Definition: Composite variable that measures residents perceptions of clinical preparedness using questions on the new specialty specific section of the resident survey. This is in lieu of case logs How measured: 3 rd year residents responses to the following questions will be aggregated to create a score

16 Performance Indicator # 5: Clinical Experience Data How well prepared are you to perform procedures without supervision? List from PRs How well prepared are you to perform patient care activities without supervision? HCM, Newborns, Acute illness, Resus/Stabilize/Triage, Behavior/Mental Health How satisfied are you with the patient volume, range of patient ages, variety of medical conditions, and extent of progressive responsibility in the care of patients?

17 Performance Indicator # 5: Clinical Experience Data How satisfied are you with the educational experiences to help you achieve competency in patient care skills? PC tracked sub-competencies How satisfied are you with aspects of your longitudinal outpatient experience? Are you well prepared to competently practice general pediatrics?

18 Performance Indicator # 6: ACGME Resident Survey Administered annually Jan-May Questions on RS relate to 7 areas: Duty Hours Faculty Evaluation Educational Content Resources Patient Safety Teamwork In 2009: All core programs and fellowships with 4 or more need to complete survey annually In 2012: RS revised to align with new CPRs. All residents & fellows were surveyed.

19 Performance Indicator # 7: Faculty Survey Core faculty only because they are most knowledgeable about the program dedicate an average of 15 hours/week trained in the evaluation and assessment of the competencies; spend significant time in the evaluation of the residents advise residents w/ respect to career and educational goals Similar domains as the Resident Survey Will be administered at same time as Resident Survey Start in winter-spring 2013 for for Phase 1

20 Self Study Visits (SSV) SSV to begin in spring of 2014 SSV of the core will be the SSV of the subs Focus on program s improvement efforts using selfassessment NAS will eliminate the program information form, which is currently prepared for site visits. Programs will conduct a 10 year self study, similar to what is done by other educational accreditors. It is envisioned that these selfstudies will go beyond a static description of a program by offering opportunities for meaningful discussion of what is important to stakeholders and showcasing of achievements in key program elements and learning outcomes. (NEJM article, pg 2) Internal Reviews: DIOs are not required to schedule internal reviews for early adopter specialties (DIO News, Jun 2012).

21 ACGME Webinars for the NAS ACGME is planning webinars for the following: Topic Target Date CLER Visit Program December 2012 Implementation of NAS: Implications for Programs & Institutions January 2013 Self-Study Visits February 2013 Milestones, CCCs, & Resident Evaluation April 2013 Webinars will repeat throughout 2013; other topics may be added