Caniano Donna A, Martinez Serge A, Nace Cathy, Hogan Sean O
All authors are with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
is Accreditation Field Representative.
J Grad Med Educ. 2021 Jun;13(3):447-454. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-21-00435.1. Epub 2021 Jun 14.
A major component of the ACGME's Next Accreditation System (NAS) is the annual review of key performance indicators by each review committee (RC) for all programs under its oversight. The RC may request a site visit that is data-prompted for either a full review of all common and specialty-specific program requirements or a focused review of specific concerns for programs identified as underperforming.
The aims of this study were to: (1) identify the reasons that RCs requested data-prompted site visits; (2) describe the findings by accreditation field representatives as reflected in their site visit reports; and (3) summarize the accreditation decisions of RCs that followed the data-prompted site visits (DPSVs).
RC letters to programs informing them of a DPSV, site visit reports, and RC letters with accreditation decisions were reviewed for all programs having DPSVs from 2015 to 2020.
DPSVs were performed in 312 programs, including 59 hospital-based, 122 medical-based, and 131 surgery-based programs; 214 programs had a single DPSV, and 98 programs had repeat DPSV. The most frequent reason that RCs requested a DPSV was noncompliance on the annual ACGME Resident/Fellow Survey. Notification of a DPSV prompted a change in program director in 7% of programs in the single DPSVs group and 57% of programs in the repeat DPSVs group. Surgery-based programs in the single and repeat DPSVs groups were more likely to receive an unfavorable accreditation status. The majority of programs in the single DPSVs group (78%) and repeat DPSVs group (70%) had a status of continued accreditation as of March 2020.
Noncompliance on the Resident/Fellow survey was the most frequent reason that RCs requested a DPSV. The majority of programs in the single and repeat DPSV groups achieved a favorable accreditation status.
美国毕业后医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)的下一代认证系统(NAS)的一个主要组成部分是每个评审委员会(RC)对其监督下的所有项目的关键绩效指标进行年度审查。评审委员会可要求进行基于数据的实地考察,以全面审查所有通用和特定专业的项目要求,或针对被认定表现不佳的项目的特定问题进行重点审查。
本研究的目的是:(1)确定评审委员会要求进行基于数据的实地考察的原因;(2)描述认证领域代表在实地考察报告中反映的调查结果;(3)总结在基于数据的实地考察(DPSV)之后评审委员会的认证决定。
对2015年至2020年所有接受DPSV的项目的评审委员会致项目的通知其进行DPSV的信件、实地考察报告以及带有认证决定的评审委员会信件进行了审查。
共对312个项目进行了DPSV,其中包括59个医院项目、122个内科项目和131个外科项目;214个项目进行了单次DPSV,98个项目进行了重复DPSV。评审委员会要求进行DPSV最常见的原因是在年度ACGME住院医师/研究员调查中不符合要求。在单次DPSV组中,7%的项目在收到DPSV通知后更换了项目主任,在重复DPSV组中这一比例为57%。单次和重复DPSV组中的外科项目更有可能获得不利的认证状态。截至2020年3月,单次DPSV组中的大多数项目(78%)和重复DPSV组中的大多数项目(70%)都获得了继续认证的状态。
住院医师/研究员调查不符合要求是评审委员会要求进行DPSV最常见的原因。单次和重复DPSV组中的大多数项目都获得了有利的认证状态。