Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, East Lansing, Michigan.
J Surg Educ. 2021 Sep-Oct;78(5):1469-1475. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.02.006. Epub 2021 Mar 22.
This article examines the outcomes and impact of the AOA/ACGME Single Accreditation System (SAS) on 6 osteopathic surgical specialties, their program directors, residents, and students and how growth in osteopathic medical schools and students affects ACGME surgical training.
The study charts the choices of 159 osteopathic surgical residencies regarding the acquisition of ACGME accreditation, decisions made by ACGME Review Committees, and how they affected program leadership, residents, and osteopathic medical students as reflected in results of residency matching programs.
According to the SAS, the osteopathic profession ceded its accreditation operations and have its programs acquire ACGME accreditation between 2015 and 2020 to form a unified accreditation system under the ACGME.
More than one-fourth (26%) of eligible osteopathic surgical programs either did not submit an application or voluntarily withdrew from the ACGME accreditation process. For the 118 surgical programs that did achieve ACGME Initial Accreditation, subsequent site visits and Review Committee decisions sparingly granted Continuing Accreditation status. In addition, 49% of the osteopathic applications listed an MD program director. Osteopathic surgical residents encountered few disruptions in transitioning to the ACGME. The full impact of the SAS was felt by osteopathic graduates in 2020 who encountered fewer DO-oriented ACGME programs and the historic trend of established ACGME surgical programs favoring candidates from American allopathic medical schools. As the osteopathic profession continues its rapid growth, competition for surgical training will only increase.
Participation in the SAS resulted in the loss of 41 surgical programs and marked reductions in training positions during a period of rapid osteopathic growth. Results from matching programs indicate that integration of DOs into established ACGME surgical residencies will be a slow, gradual process. The SAS succeeded in creating a unified standard for surgical training yet generated negative consequences on osteopathic surgical training.
本文考察了 AOA/ACGME 单一认证系统 (SAS) 对 6 个骨科学专科、其项目主任、住院医师和学生的结果和影响，以及骨科学医学院和学生的增长如何影响 ACGME 外科培训。
本研究记录了 159 个骨科学住院医师培训计划在获得 ACGME 认证方面的选择、ACGME 审查委员会做出的决定，以及这些决定如何影响项目领导、住院医师和骨科学医学生，反映在住院医师匹配计划的结果中。
根据 SAS，整骨专业将其认证运营权让渡给 ACGME，并要求其计划在 2015 年至 2020 年间获得 ACGME 认证，以在 ACGME 下形成一个统一的认证系统。
超过四分之一（26%）符合条件的骨科学住院医师培训计划要么没有提交申请，要么自愿退出 ACGME 认证程序。对于 118 个获得 ACGME 初始认证的外科培训计划，随后的现场访问和审查委员会决定很少授予持续认证状态。此外，49%的骨科学申请列出了 MD 项目主任。骨科学住院医师在过渡到 ACGME 时几乎没有遇到中断。SAS 的全面影响是在 2020 年感受到的，当时骨科学毕业生遇到了较少的以 DO 为导向的 ACGME 课程，以及历史上倾向于美国传统医学学校候选人的既定 ACGME 外科课程的趋势。随着整骨专业的快速发展，外科培训的竞争只会加剧。
参与 SAS 导致 41 个外科培训计划流失，并在整骨快速增长期间显著减少培训岗位。匹配计划的结果表明，将 DO 纳入既定的 ACGME 外科住院医师培训计划将是一个缓慢、渐进的过程。SAS 成功地为外科培训创造了一个统一的标准，但对骨科学外科培训产生了负面影响。
