MercyOne Medical Center, General Surgery Residency, Des Moines, Iowa.
MercyOne Medical Center, General Surgery Residency, Des Moines, Iowa; Department of Surgery, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC.
J Surg Educ. 2023 Oct;80(10):1378-1384. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2023.07.005. Epub 2023 Aug 10.
Intentionally self-driven professional development of surgical resident physicians is a hallmark of surgical training and is expected to gain further traction as Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) become the new paradigm for surgical education. We aimed to analyze how surgical residents rate themselves as compared to the evaluation of the Clinical Competency Committee using ACGME Milestones Version 1 (M1.0) and Version 2 (M2.0).
We asked 22 general surgical trainees for self-evaluation of Milestones (both M1.0 and M2.0) from 2017 semiannually to 2022. ACGME-required Milestone evaluations by the Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) were independently performed after the time window for resident self-evaluation. Neither trainees nor CCC were aware of the other party's evaluations. There were 1552 paired data available for evaluating individual competencies by both trainees and CCC. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were then performed among the corresponding pairs.
MercyOne Des Moines Medical Center, Des Moines, IA; Teaching tertiary referral center.
Twenty-two general surgical trainees at this hospital and 28 faculty surgeons participated in this study.
The average self-evaluation of surgical residents was lower in the M1.0 cohort compared to the corresponding CCC evaluation (1.96 ± 0.72 vs. 2.11 ± 0.67; p < 0.001). M1.0 self-assessments and CCC-assessments were statistically similar for ICS (p = 0.548) and PROF (p = 0.554) competencies and differed for MK (p < 0.001), PBLI (p < 0.001), PC (p < 0.001), SBP (p = 0.008). On the contrary, the M2.0 cohort demonstrated higher average self-evaluation of surgical residents compared to the corresponding CCC evaluation (2.75 ± 0.87 vs. 2.12 ± 0.97; p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed for all 6 ACGME competencies using M2.0 self-assessments and CCC-assessments (all p < 0.001). Multivariate regression modeling (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.255) predicted the degree of discordance between self-assessment and CCC-assessed achievement of competencies with a significant effect of gender (baseline male: coef = -0.232, p < 0.001), PGY level (-0.083 per year, p < 0.001) and Milestone version (0.831, p < 0.001). A significant interaction exists for all gender/Milestone combinations except for the female trainees with M1.0.
The difference between self-evaluated Milestone achievement and faculty-driven CCC evaluation of surgical resident physician performance is more evident in Milestones 2.0 than in Milestones 1.0. Residents self-evaluate higher compared to faculty using Milestones 2.0. This discrepancy is seen among both genders and is more pronounced among male residents overestimating core competencies with M2.0 self-evaluation than formal CCC assessment.
外科住院医师的自我驱动的专业发展是外科培训的标志,随着可委托的专业活动(EPAs)成为外科教育的新范式,预计这种发展将进一步得到重视。我们旨在分析外科住院医师如何根据 ACGME 里程碑版本 1(M1.0)和版本 2(M2.0)自我评估与临床能力委员会(CCC)的评估进行比较。
我们要求 22 名普通外科受训者从 2017 年半年到 2022 年每半年对里程碑(包括 M1.0 和 M2.0)进行自我评估。CCC 独立进行了 ACGME 要求的里程碑评估,时间窗口在住院医师自我评估之后。受训者和 CCC 都不知道对方的评估。有 1552 对数据可用于评估受训者和 CCC 的个人能力。然后对相应的配对数据进行配对 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验。
爱荷华州得梅因市 MercyOne 医疗中心;教学三级转诊中心。
这家医院的 22 名普通外科受训者和 28 名教员外科医生参与了这项研究。
M1.0 队列中外科住院医师的自我评估平均低于 CCC 评估(1.96 ± 0.72 与 2.11 ± 0.67;p < 0.001)。M1.0 自我评估和 CCC 评估在 ICS(p = 0.548)和 PROF(p = 0.554)能力方面具有统计学意义,而在 MK(p < 0.001)、PBLI(p < 0.001)、PC(p < 0.001)和 SBP(p = 0.008)方面则不同。相反,M2.0 队列中外科住院医师的自我评估平均高于 CCC 评估(2.75 ± 0.87 与 2.12 ± 0.97;p < 0.001)。使用 M2.0 自我评估和 CCC 评估,所有 6 项 ACGME 能力都有显著差异(均 p < 0.001)。多元回归模型(p < 0.001,R2 = 0.255)预测了自我评估与 CCC 评估的能力达成之间的差异程度,性别(基线男性:coef = -0.232,p < 0.001)、PGY 水平(每年-0.083,p < 0.001)和里程碑版本(0.831,p < 0.001)有显著影响。除了 M1.0 的女性受训者外,所有性别/里程碑组合都存在显著的交互作用。
与外科住院医师表现的教员驱动的 CCC 评估相比,自我评估里程碑成就的差异在里程碑 2.0 中比里程碑 1.0 中更为明显。住院医师使用里程碑 2.0 自我评估比教员评估更高。这种差异在两性中都存在,并且在男性住院医师中更为明显,他们使用 M2.0 自我评估比正式的 CCC 评估高估了核心能力。