ACGME outcomes-based accreditation?

[KCShaw]

http://www.acgme-nas.org/assets/pdf/NASnewsreleaseFeb2012.pdf

Is this news? It's the first I recall seeing this even though it was released last month and has evidently been in the works since 2009. Initially I kinda thought it was a joke (which may be why I don't remember coming across this before, if I blew it off then too). It includes the following (emphasis mine):

"The ACGME’s next accreditation system is consistent with recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and such respected bodies as the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation."

"The ACGME will update the accreditation status of each program yearly based on trends in key performance parameters."

"The ACGME expects the new system will reduce the burden on teaching institutions while enhancing the profession’s accountability to the public for the effectiveness of GME."

The actual way they seem to be going about it sounds innocuous enough, if almost certainly useless, and a pain for programs to update and a pain for the ACGME to monitor and/or act on -- what bothers me is the overt politico-societal pandering, which appears far more than usual.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Path or bust]

http://www.acgme-nas.org/assets/pdf/NASnewsreleaseFeb2012.pdf

Is this news? It's the first I recall seeing this even though it was released last month and has evidently been in the works since 2009. Initially I kinda thought it was a joke (which may be why I don't remember coming across this before, if I blew it off then too). It includes the following (emphasis mine):

"The ACGME’s next accreditation system is consistent with recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and such respected bodies as the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation."

"The ACGME will update the accreditation status of each program yearly based on trends in key performance parameters."

"The ACGME expects the new system will reduce the burden on teaching institutions while enhancing the profession’s accountability to the public for the effectiveness of GME."

The actual way they seem to be going about it sounds innocuous enough, if almost certainly useless, and a pain for programs to update and a pain for the ACGME to monitor and/or act on -- what bothers me is the overt politico-societal pandering, which appears far more than usual.

Yeah, they call it "milestones initiative" or something like that. From what I understand it will also look at inservice exam performance of trainees....

 

[Torsed]

I am done with training so I really don't care what ACGME does, but concerning in-service pathology examination, I took them cold turkey without studying the first three years and then did well (all 500's) the last year prior to boards and passed AP/CP on first attempt.

I doubt the in-service is a true testament of how much/little a resident in pathology really knows. I suspect that testing is not standard as well all have heard about some programs taking them open book, etc. If thats true or not I am not sure. I agree that this all sounds like more mindless junk for pathology to screw with. In service exams monitoring may work in surgery/medicine, but as usual pathology seems to get lumped in with all those nabobs. If they want to make a real difference, they should cut out half the path programs.

 

[KCShaw]

Interesting. I inferred from the pdf/news release that it was to basically be an expansion of what programs are already forced to do with 'competencies,' only that evaluations will have to be at least every 6 months and those updates -published- every 6 months. Although it obviously cracks the door open to using the/an in-service as one component, the current RISE simply won't work -- training year to year and the way the RISE is administered program to program just isn't standard. And shouldn't be forced to be. The final product already speaks for itself.