ACGMe Bulletin
August 2008
The ACGME e-Bulletin is published several times per year by the ACGME and distributed
to individuals in residency education. It is also available from the ACGME Web site at
http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/bulletin-e/ebu_index.asp
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education
Ingrid Philibert
Editor
ACGME Guidance on Entering and Selecting Participating
Institutions and Sites
Ingrid Philibert, PhD, MBA, Rebecca Miller, MS
The ACGME has received a number of questions about the listing of participating institutions in the
Accreditation Data System (ADS), related to the requirement that programs “submit any additions
or deletions of participating sites routinely providing an educational experience, required for all
residents, of one month full time equivalent (FTE) or more through the Accreditation Council for
Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Accreditation Data System (ADS).”
RRCs differ somewhat in their interpretations of this requirement. Several specialties have added
requirements for participating institutions and other sites, which require the tracking of all required rotations
regardless of the number of residents and time spent at the site (Diagnostic Radiology, Anesthesiology,
Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Oncology, Transitional Year, Orthopaedic Surgery, Dermatology, Pathology,
and Medical Genetics). The RRCs for pediatrics and family medicine do not require continuity clinics
and experiences at private clinic offices to be included. Irrespective of an RRC requirement, a given site
may be entered in ADS, but only sites with required rotations will appear on the program information
form (PIF). Sites are defined as all organizations that provide educational experiences or educational
assignments/rotations for residents or fellows. Examples of sites include: a teaching hospital and its
ambulatory clinics and related facilities, group and private medical practices, nursing homes, health
departments, federally qualified health centers and similar settings.
The ACGME enables programs to enter participating institutions into ADS after the sponsoring
institution has listed them as a rotation location. In response to questions from sponsoring institutions,
a recent clarification is that ambulatory sites under common ownership and in a common location with
the sponsoring institution or a major participating site do not need to have a separate ADS institution
number or “ID.” Instead, the sponsor’s or participating institution’s ID should be used. If it is important
to the program or sponsoring institution to separately identify its ambulatory sites, a single separate ID
may be created in ADS for all on-site and satellite ambulatory sites located within 10 miles of the sponsoring
institution. This single ID, to be used by all programs that use an ambulatory site, should be named to
reflect the association with the inpatient clinical sites, such as “St. Luke’s Hospital Affiliated Ambulatory
Clinics.” For sites located more than 10 miles away from the sponsoring or affiliated inpatient site, a
separate ADS ID needs to be created for each location. A single separate ID may also be created in
ADS for private ambulatory sites (not affiliated with an inpatient clinical site) located within 10 miles of
the sponsoring institution.
©2008 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). This document may be photocopied for the non-commercial
purpose of educational advancement. ACGME is not liable for errors or omissions appearing in this document.
ACGME e-Bulletin August 2008 2
The benefits of this approach include reducing the number of site IDs the program and its sponsoring
institution need to create and maintain in ADS, and simplifying the process for program staff to select
the appropriate ambulatory site ID.
A related question is whether all sites with a separate ADS ID are required to have on file program
letters of affiliation (PLAs). When the ACGME issued a clarification to changes in its expectations for
PLAS in 2007, this FAQ specified that “if the two sites operate essentially as one entity (when they are
governed by one governing body), neither a master affiliation agreement nor a program letter of agreement
is necessary.” A recently added response option to the PLA question (“PLA not applicable”) allows a
program to indicate that a given site does not need a PLA because it is under common ownership with
the sponsoring institution or one of its affiliates. This information will be automatically loaded into the
common PIF.
ACGME Expectations for Evaluations in Residents’ and
Fellows’ Files
Ingrid Philibert, PhD, MBA
The ACGME periodically receives questions about the information to be included in individual resident
files and the period of time during which documents in resident files need to be retained. The context is
the review of randomly selected resident files during the accreditation site visit, to assess documentation
related to a number of program requirements, including procedural volume in surgical specialties and
documentation of the periodic evaluation of residents.
Content of Resident Files
Although review of resident files is an important component of the site visit, the ACGME does not narrowly
specify the content of residents’ files and has just a small number of common program requirements
that directly relate to resident files, such as the requirements that residents receive formal documented
evaluations every six months, and that residents have access to their evaluations, irrespective of whether
they are in paper or electronic form. A prior clarification in the e-Bulletin (February 2005 and September
2007) focused on expectations for documentation to be included in the files of residents who transferred
into the program, and maintenance of documents when programs use electronic evaluation systems. It
did not provide general guidance on the documents to be included in resident files.
The brief list below provides the expectations for the minimum content in current residents’
“educational files” maintained by the program:
• writtenevaluationsfromthefacultyandothers;
• periodicevaluations(atminimumeverysixmonths)bytheProgramDirector,his/herdesignee
and/oraresidentevaluationcommittee;
• recordsofresidentphysician’srotationsandothertrainingexperiences,includingsurgicaland
proceduraltrainingasapplicable;
• recordsofdisciplinaryactions,aspertinenttothegivenresident;
ACGME e-Bulletin August 2008 3
• forresidentsengagedinmoonlighting,aprospective,writtenstatementofpermissionfromthe
programdirector(asspecifiedbytheinstitutionalrequirements);
• materialsrequiredbyACGMEinstitutionalandspecialprogramrequirements;and
• othercontentasdeterminedbytheProgramDirectorand/orthesponsoringinstitution.
For residents successfully completing the program, the permanent file should contain a succinct summary
of the resident’s evaluations and/or a letter documenting the resident’s ability to practice competently
and independently.
The term “files” in this context is not limited to paper formats. The resident files in a given program
may be paper-based, retained in electronic storage or a combination of the two. It is important that for
all media, secure storage is used to prevent loss of the records, and that for electronic storage, the
program has file back-up and recovery protocols that are consistently followed.
Document Retention
The ACGME does not have standards for document retention, which specify the period for which records
need to be kept after a resident’s graduation. It defers to institutional document retention standards.
Legal experts recommend that the period for which files need to be retained is at least seven (7) years
after the resident has graduated.
The following core files should be kept indefinitely by the sponsoring institution, to accommodate
requests for primary source verification for residents who have completed the program:
• asummationoftheresident’sevaluationsand/orthefinalletterbytheprogramdirector;
• recordsofresidentphysician’srotations,trainingexperiencesandprocedures;and
• documentationofdisciplinaryaction,ifany.
For residents who do not complete the program or who are not recommended for Board certification,
most programs will keep the entire file indefinitely in case of subsequent legal action.
Additional information about resident evaluations can be found in the Program Director Guide to
the Common Program Requirements (http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/navPages/nav_commonpr.asp).
Programs with specific questions about what documents to include in their resident files and for how
long they should be retained also should consult with their designated institutional official and, as
needed, institutional general counsel.
Learning Portfolio Testers Share Experiences at the 2008
ACGME Annual Educational Conference
Julie Jacob
The 2008 ACGME Annual Educational Conference was held February 28 through March 2 at the
Gaylord Texan in Grapevine, Texas. Based on the large crowd of people who packed the meeting room
for a portfolio update that was part of the conference, interest is high in the ACGME Learning Portfolio.
An alpha prototype of an electronic portfolio for residents is currently undergoing testing. Residents can
use the portfolio to store and organize information about their learning, request and receive evaluations,
and reflect on their progress. After continued testing and refinement of the portfolio over the next few
years, the ACGME hopes to make the portfolio available to residents in all programs.
ACGME e-Bulletin August 2008 4
The session presenters, all of whom are testing the portfolio in their programs, spoke about their
experiences using it and fielded questions from the audience. Richard M. Schlenk, MD, associate program
director of the neurosurgery residency program at the Cleveland Clinic, noted that it is easy to upload
various types of files to the portfolio, including .jpg and .pdf files. Resident attitudes toward reflection
vary widely, he said, with about one-third of residents eagerly entering their reflections on learning in
the portfolio, one-third doing so with prompting from faculty members, and the remainder of residents
showing some reluctance to logging reflections on their learning.
Mariah E. Capurso, residency manager of the Leadership Preventive Medicine Program at
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center commented on the benefits of the portfolio for managing resident
evaluations. “The portfolio system has really decreased the amount of time needed to track evaluations,”
said Ms. Capurso. In addition, since residents began to use the portfolio, faculty members have been
receiving more requests from residents for feedback, she said. Nan Garber, MD, an assistant professor
of critical care pediatrics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, said the portfolio system
has gotten high marks from faculty members. “Even the most difficult to please attending thinks it is a
user-friendly system,” said Dr. Garber.
Rebecca S. Urunga, MD, a resident in the obstetrics and gynecology residency program at
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, gave the resident perspective on the portfolio. Dr. Urunga uses
the online portfolio to store her curriculum vitae, research proposals, evaluations, and reflections, noting
“The portfolio is a place where I can organize my facts, my experiences, my thoughts.” She added that
some residents were skeptical about the portfolio at first, and that she has encouraged her peers to
try using the portfolio, and found many who have liked it.
More information on the ACGME Learning Portfolio, including frequently asked questions and
an annotated bibliography, is available on the ACGME website at http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/
portfolio/learn_cbpac.asp.
Multidisciplinary Rounding Helps to Improve Patient Safety,
Team Communication
Julie Jacob
Patient care improves when residents, nurses, faculty, case managers and other health professionals
work together to coordinate the care of inpatients, said two speakers who presented a session on
multidisciplinary rounding at the 2008 ACGME Annual Educational Conference. Two physicians at the
Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Peter Watson, MD, and Anna Lukowski, MD, discussed the launch of a
multidisciplinary rounding program at the hospital. Dr. Watson is chief of hospitalist medicine and an
associate director of the internal medicine residency program, and Dr. Lukowski is program director for
the transitional year program and associate program director for the internal medicine residency program.
The multidisciplinary rounding program was developed as a project for the Residency Review
Committee for Internal Medicine Educational Innovation Project, which allows strong internal medicine
programs to develop innovative ways to advance resident education and patient care. Dr. Watson and
Dr. Lukowski listed the barriers to maintaining good patient care in hospitals: limited time, silos of care
thatdividephysicians,nurses,andcasemanagers;andalackofstandardizedcommunicationamong
members of health care teams. These obstacles can result in missed lab results, adverse reactions to
medications, and reduced patient compliance with discharge instructions, among other things.
ACGME e-Bulletin August 2008 5
The internal medicine program began a collaborative multidisciplinary rounding program in fall 2005,
designed to address some of the barriers to maintaining quality patient care. The collaborative rounding
consists of four parts:
• Theresidents’reviewofqualityandsafetyissuesduringdailypatientassessments;
• Adiscussionamongseniorstaffandhealthcareteammembersofpatientissues,and
completionofastandardizedphysicianreviewchecklist;
• Adailymeetingofseniorresidents,staff,nursesandcasemanagerstodevelopteam
plansforpatients;and
• Collaborationbetweenseniorandjuniorresidentstocarryoutthepatientplans.
Preliminary results of the multidisciplinary rounding indicated that the average length of stay for patients
before and after the introduction of multidisciplinary rounding decreased slightly, from 5.6% to 5.2%,
and readmission rates dropped from 17.9% to 16.4%. Although there were no significant improvements
in patients’ overall satisfaction with the clinical unit or their perception of the physicians, there was a
slight increase in the patients’ readiness for discharge. In addition, noted Dr. Watson and Dr. Lukowski,
there was anecdotal evidence of improved communication between residents and nurses, as well as
feedback that fewer details of care are being overlooked.
Future goals for the program, noted Dr. Watson and Lukowkski, are to continue standardizing the
rounding process, and to better educate patients about multidisciplinary rounding.
Department of Accreditation Committees (DAC) System
Enhancements of Note to Program Directors and DIOs
Jeanne Heard, MD, PhD
ACGME Improves System for Facilitating Contact with the DAC Review Committee Staff
In 2007, the ACGME developed detailed ‘contact lists for specific topics’ for each of its Review
Committees, with the goal of improving access to committee staff for constituents with questions or
comments. These lists are located on each Review Committee web page and are intended to facilitate
efforts by program directors, coordinators and DIOs to receive answers to inquiries in an efficient
manner. In addition, all of the contact information for the Department can be found at www.acgme.org —
click on “About ACGME”, click on “Staff Listings”, click on “Department of Accreditation Committees”.
On occasion, constituents have indicated that they have difficulty in receiving timely responses.
The following guidelines are offered to address this issue:
1.AccesstheReviewCommitteewebpagecontactlisttolocatethepersonresponsibleforthetopic;
2.Contactthatpersonviaphoneoremail;
3. If a response is not received within seven (7) business days of a phone call or email:
send or resend the email to the person and copy the Senior Executive Director of the Group
and/or the Senior Vice President for Accreditation Committees (see page 6), or call the Senior
Executive Director of the Group and/or the Senior Vice President for Accreditation Committees.
ACGME e-Bulletin August 2008 6
Redesigning Review Committee Web Pages Continues
In 2007, the ACGME began a major initiative to redesign the Review Committee web pages. To date,
the web pages for thirteen Committees have been updated. The remaining sites will be completed this
year. Each updated web page includes detailed staff contact information, a list of Review Committee
members, access to the requirements and accreditation information forms, guidelines and other program
resources, frequently asked questions (FAQs), the PD Virtual Handbook, newsletters and links to other
information within the ACGME website.
Deadlines for Notification of Accreditation Information
In 2005, ACGME implemented email notification to program directors/DIOs about the results of program/
sponsoring institution accreditation reviews. About one week following the meeting, the program
director/DIO receives an email informing him/her of the accreditation status. The exception is that the
e-mail notification is not sent for a proposed adverse action or adverse action. The ‘status’ e-mail is
sent to the following individuals:
1. For the results of a specialty program review, notification is sent to the program director
withacopytotheDIOofthesponsoringinstitution;
2. For the results of the review of a dependent subspecialty, notification is sent to its program
director,andcopiesaresenttothecorespecialtyprogramdirectorandtheDIO;
3. For the results of the review of a dependent sub-subspecialty, notification is sent to
its program director, and copies are sent to the subspecialty and core specialty program
directorsandtheDIO;
4. For the results of an institutional review, notification is sent to the DIO.
Group 1: Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics
William Rodak, PhD Senior Executive Director 312.755.5497 wer@acgme.org
Group 2: Anesthesiology, Allergy and Immunology, Dermatology, Diagnostic Radiology,
Medical Genetics, Nuclear Medicine, Ophthalmology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Otolaryngology,
Pathology, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Preventive Medicine, Radiation Oncology,
Transitional Year
Steve Nestler, PhD Senior Executive Director 312.755.5025 spn@acgme.org
Group 3: Colon & Rectal Surgery, Emergency Medicine, Neurological Surgery, Neurology,
Plastic Surgery, Psychiatry, Surgery, Thoracic Surgery, Urology
Larry Sulton, PhD Senior Executive Director 312.755.5027 lds@acgme.org
Group 4: Institutional Review Committee, Obstetrics/Gynecology
Pat Surdyk, PhD Executive Director 312.755.5005 psurdyk@acgme.org
Department of Accreditation Committees
Jeanne K. Heard, MD, PhD Senior Vice President 312.755.5040 jkh@acgme.org
ACGME e-Bulletin August 2008 7
Six to eight weeks after the Review Committee meeting, the program director and DIO will receive
notification that the letter of notification (LON) with the complete accreditation information has been
posted in ADS. Beginning with Review Committee meetings that occur after July 1, 2008, the ACGME
will adhere to the following deadlines for these notifications:
1. Status e-mails will be sent five (5) business days after the review committee meeting to the
individual noted above.
2. Letters of notification will be posted within 60 days of the review committee meeting taking place.
ACGME Publishes Key to the ACGME’s Standard Notification
Letter for Continued Accreditation
One of the major initiatives of the ACGME Department of Accreditation Committees was to standardize
the notification letter programs receive after the RRC has made an accreditation decision. To further
enhance transparency, the ACGME has published a key to the standard notification letter for programs
receiving continued accreditation. It is available from the ACGME web site at http://www.acgme.org/
acWebsite/utility/KeyStandard.pdf
The key to the standard letter offers explanations for important points of the standard letter, such
as accreditation status, length of training, the maximum number of residents and residents at each level,
the effective date of accreditation, and the approximate date for the next site visit of the program. The
section concerning areas not in substantial compliance (the citation section) also is addressed in the
keytothestandardletter;thissectionreferencestheprogramrequirementsforeachcitationlisted.For
programs without citations and for programs with an accreditation cycle length of 4 or 5 years, this section
also includes a statement of commendation to the program or institution for demonstrating substantial
compliance with the requirements.
The standard letter notes that for all adverse actions for established programs (probation, withdrawal
of accreditation or RRC initiated reductions in resident complement), the ACGME provides the program
director with an opportunity to respond to the citations by submitting written information to the Review
Committee. The response must be reviewed and approved by the sponsoring institution’s Graduate
Medical Education Committee and co-signed by the Designated Institutional Official (DIO).
Standard letters also may include additional information that communicates the RRC’s decision on
such matters as a change in participating institutions or other changes in the program. Letters also may
include a listing of areas that will be given close attention during the next accreditation review, sometimes
referred to as areas for improvement. These are typically areas in which the program or institution is
marginally in compliance and the Review Committee is concerned that the program or institution is in
jeopardy of falling below the threshold of compliance. These are not citations, because the program/
institution is in compliance. However, the program or institution may be advised to monitor compliance
in this area and, and the Review Committee will follow up at the time of the program/institution’s next
review. At the end of the letter, all regular participating sites listed in the ACGME Accreditation Data
System (ADS) are shown.
ACGME e-Bulletin August 2008 8
Selected Winning Posters from the 2008 ACGME Annual
Educational Conference Marvin R. Dunn Poster Session
The 2008 ACGME Annual Educational Conference was held in Grapevine, Texas, and was attended by
more than 1,200 program directors, designated institutional officials, faculty and program coordinators.
The Marvin Dunn Poster Sessions have been conducted annually since 2004. The 2008 session featured
high-quality posters on topics of interest to program and institutional leaders and other constituents.
The abstracts for selected winning posters are presented to offer samples of the breadth and depth of
the topics addressed. The ACGME also is inviting submissions of abstracts for the 2009 poster session.
Detailed information will be provided in the upcoming issue of the ACGME Bulletin.
Mayo Practice-Based Improvement Log: Assessing Residents’ Perceptions of Adverse Events
Jason Post, MD, Bryan Krajicek, MD, Colin West, MD, Furman McDonald, MD, Joseph Kolars, MD,
Kris Thomas, MD, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
Background: The landmark report “To Err is Human” has lead to significant change in the approach
to quality improvement and healthcare delivery. Recognition of errors is an essential step in the quality
improvement process and is an integral component of competence in systems-based practice (SBP)
and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI). Our program is currently working through the
Educational Innovation Project (EIP) to study ways to teach and assess competency in SBP and PBLI
Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe residents’ perceptions of adverse events encountered
during internal medicine training as collected using the Mayo Practice-Based Improvement Log (MPBIL).
Methods: The MPBIL was developed through an iterative process by a core group of medical educators
at Mayo Clinic Rochester. This group consisted of the internal medicine residency program director,
associate program directors, and chief medical residents. The MPBIL was released to all 169 categorical
and preliminary internal medicine residents at Mayo Clinic Rochester in an electronic form in February 2006.
Results/Outcomes/Improvements: One-hundred forty-six (86%) of 169 residents completed the MPBIL.
Residents frequently reported events resulting in significant clinical consequences (25% moderately
severe, 6% severe, 14% death), with the majority of events identified as preventable (80%). Overall,
42% of the respondents reported the event to someone that they identified as a leader in quality
improvement. PGY-3 residents were more likely to have reported the event to leadership than PGY-1
residents (50% vs. 35%). Residents were more likely to identify personal (37%) and team factors
(16%) than systems factors (12%) as contributors to an event. Of the personal factors identified, PGY-1
residents were more likely to report knowledge (PGY-1: 51%, PGY-2: 39%, PGY-3: 35%), experience
(PGY-1: 65%, PGY-2: 44%, PGY-3: 43%), and judgment (PGY-1: 60%, PGY-2: 39%, PGY-3: 25%)
as important contributing factors. PGY-1 residents were also more likely than PGY-3 residents to report
fatigue as a contributing factor (24% and 15%, respectively).
ACGME e-Bulletin August 2008 9
Significance: These data illustrate that residents can recognize opportunities for improvement in
healthcare delivery. Residents are able to identify and report clinically significant adverse events that
are often perceived to be preventable. The MPBIL provides a mechanism to review residents’ perceptions
of adverse events. As such, this instrument can be used to illustrate residents’ ability to identify and
characterize improvement opportunities as one component of competence in PBLI and SBP.
Hospital-Wide Entry and Second Year Multi-Station Clinical Exams for Residents
Julie G. Nyquist, PhD, Stephanie E. Gates, MEd, Jeffrey M. Ring, PhD, University of Southern California
and White Memorial Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, Los Angeles, CA
Background: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) is moving the
emphasis in accreditation review to focus more on outcomes. In addition to teaching and assessing the
competencies listed in the common and specialty-specific requirements, all residency programs are
expected to show evidence of how they use educational outcomes data to improve individual resident
and overall program performance (ACGME, July 2007). To accomplish this requires expertise, faculty
time and residency resources. Many individual programs lack expertise. Additionally, these requirements
are being mandated at a time of increasing strain on the resources of most training programs, particularly
in terms of faculty time. Combining resources to produce hospital-wide multi-station clinical examinations
(MSCE) to assess ACGME competencies may be a partial solution for many academic health centers.
Objective : To develop collaborative MSCEs to track achievement of ACGME competencies and
assist programs in using outcome data to improve individual resident performance and overall
program performance.
Methods: White Memorial Medical Center (four residencies — Family Medicine, Internal Medicine,
Pediatrics, and Obstetrics and Gynecology) is implementing an Entry MSCE for all beginning residents
and another MSCE 1.5 years into training. The program directors collaborated to develop the test
outline and select cases. An evaluation consultant assisted the directors in developing the rating
scales, and training faculty raters and the standardized patients. The first Entry MSCE was implemented
in June 2007 during resident orientation. The exam included 12 stations, 20 minutes per station with
most having five minutes for faculty raters to provide feedback. The 12 stations included at least one
station related to each ACGME competency except Medical Knowledge and specifically included
issues of cultural competence and patient safety. Scores were computed for each resident and each
program as well as the grand mean (by station and overall performance). Program Directors met to
review the findings. This resulted in remediation of individual residents, as needed, and in plans for
specific training sessions based on programmatic and hospital-wide resident performance needs. The
Entry MSCE will be repeated each June. The first second-year MSCE will be administered in January
2009 for this same group of residents.
Results/Outcomes/Improvements: This was the first joint project undertaken by the program directors
and program coordinators and all phases went smoothly. Resident overall performance had a mean=76/100
(SD = 4.9). The station means ranged from 64/100 (data review station) to 87/100 (back pain history
and physical exam station). Only two stations had overall means below 70%, the data review station
and the fever/cough history and diagnosis. The means for the 24 learners ranged from 62/100 to
ACGME e-Bulletin August 2008 10
86/100. Only two residents had means below 70%. Individual plans for improvement were developed
and implemented for each of those residents and for others as needed. The programs are coordinating
to provide a training session on data review skills. Each program is also developing learning activities to
address individual areas of need.
Significance: Collaboration among training programs, to meet new accreditation requirements and
enhance program excellence, is a potential solution to increased requirements and decreased resources.
A Program Improvement Process Based on Clinical Outcomes
John Buckley MD, MPH, Barbara Joyce, PhD, Eric Scher, MD, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI
Background: Program evaluation methods in Graduate Medical Education (GME) have been predominantly
based on the design and content of curricula, aggregate scores on standardized exams and 360-degree
evaluations, and participation in research and quality projects. Such aggregate data are surrogate markers
for clinical outcomes. Phase 3 of the Outcome Project mandates programs use external measures
(i.e.qualityofcareindicators;patientsatisfactiondata)toassessaresidencyprogram’seducational
effectiveness. Swing, et al (2007) concluded that quality of care indicators may serve as indicators of
the effectiveness of the educational training program. This abstract describes the use of a modified
Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle using patient outcome data to measure educational effectiveness of
a Pulmonary/Critical Care Fellowship.
Objective : Our objective was to apply a modified PDSA cycle to improve training in the Pulmonary/
Critical Care Medicine fellowship using patient outcome data as a measure of educational effectiveness.
Methods: A modified PDSA cycle that incorporated educational components, quality improvement
components, and discussion of program-specific environmental factors was applied to a Pulmonary and
Critical Care Medicine Fellowship. An example of this modified PDSA cycle used patient outcome data
on central vein catheter complications from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and National
Nosocomial Infection Surveillance system (NNIS) as educational outcome measures.
1. Plan: A retrospective review of departmental performance on central vein catheter complications
as completed prior to institution of curriculum and simulator-based training on insertion technique.
2. Do: Curriculum and simulation training focusing on known techniques to reduce pneumothorax
and infection rates during central line placement was implemented.
3. Study: After implementation of curriculum and simulation training, errors on insertion and infection
rates of central line placement decreased. Our complication and infection rates were compared
to national benchmarks. We discussed the program-specific environmental factors impacting
this process.
4. Act: Educational training of fellows was modified to increase the use of ultrasound-guided vein
cannulation and we reinforced established effective infection control behaviors.
ACGME e-Bulletin August 2008 11
Significance: Linking residency and fellowship program performance with clinical outcomes is possible
using existing or accessible quality improvement databases. Comparison with regional and national
standards permits program directors and institutions to prioritize subsequent educational activities.
Isolating the individual role of trainees in the clinical outcome may be difficult given the collaborative
nature of delivered patient care. Additional mechanisms for linking individual performance with clinical
outcomes are needed.
References: Swing, S., Schneider, S., Basov, K., Chapman, D., Graff, L., Hobgood C., Lukens, T., Radford, M., Sanders, A., Smith-Coggins,
R., Spillane, L., Hruska, L., Wears, R. (2007). Using Patient Care Quality Measures to Assess Educational Outcomes. Academic Emergency
Medicine, 14(5), 463–473.
Joint Commission Aims to Stop Bad Behavior Among
Health Professionals
Ingrid Philibert, PhD, MBA
Rude language and hostile behavior among health care professionals goes beyond being unpleasant
and poses a threat to patient safety and quality of care, according to a new Joint Commission standard
that will go into effect January 1, 2009. It will affect 15,000 accredited health care facilities, including
hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, laboratories, ambulatory care facilities, and behavioral
health care facilities. Activities considered under the new standard are verbal outbursts, condescending
attitudes, refusing to take part in assigned duties and making physical threats, based on the Joint
Commission’s belief that these behaviors have a negative effect on communication, collaboration and
teamwork vital to a good patient care environment.
The recent Joint Commission’s Sentinel Event Alert recommends that hospitals and other
organizations educate members of the health care team about professional behavior, enforce the code
of conduct consistently and equitably, and establish a comprehensive approach to addressing intimidation
and disruptive language and actions. The Joint Commission expectations include applying a zero tolerance
policy, involvement and support from physician leaders, and reducing fears of retribution if a physician
reports a colleague for this type of behavior. Related ACGME standards include the professionalism
competency standards in the common program requirements, and the institutional requirements requiring
the Sponsoring Institution and the programs to provide an environment in which residents may raise
and resolve issues without fear of intimidation or retaliation. This includes issues related to intimidating
and disruptive behaviors directed at or witnessed by residents.