Updates from the Residency Review Committees for Internal Medicine & Pediatrics MPPDA Meeting April 10, 2014 Caroline Fischer, MBA, Executive Director, RC-Peds Jerry Vasilias, PhD, Executive Director, RC-IM

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)

What’s new… NAS is here… Brief summary of NAS Highlights from last RC meeting Workflow Changes Highlights from Policy and Procedures Manual Citations and non-citations Milestones Recent news

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) One step back…

© 2013 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Information Current as of December 2, 2013 Why NAS? To achieve promise of outcomes-based accreditation Annual review of programs to identify “problem programs” to help them improve Reduce the burden of accreditation Some key elements of NAS: Most data in NAS already in place Annual ADS data entry replaces PIFs Self-studies every 10 years Site visited only when “issues” arise “Internal Reviews” no longer required Programs in good standing can innovate with “detail” PRs Significant % of common and specialty PRs are “detail” Citations, Areas for Improvement

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) The Data Elements of NAS… The following are the primary annual data elements: 1)Program Attrition 2)Program Changes 3)Scholarly Activity 4)Board Pass Rate 5)Clinical Experience Data 6)Resident Survey 7)Faculty Survey 8)Milestones

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Spotlight: Clinical Experience Data The following are the primary annual data elements: 1)Program Attrition 2)Program Changes 3)Scholarly Activity 4)Board Pass Rate 5)Clinical Experience Data 6)Resident Survey 7)Faculty Survey 8)Milestones

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Annual Data Element #5: Med-Peds: Clinical Experience Data Composite variable on perceptions of clinical preparedness. How measured: 4th year residents’ responses to RS IM: Adequacy of clinical and didactic experience in IM, subs, EM, & Neuro Variety of clinical problems/stages of disease? Experience w patients of both genders and a broad age range? Continuity experience sufficient to allow development of a continuous therapeutic relationship with panel of patients Ability to manage patients in the prevention, counseling, detection, diagnosis and treatment of diseases appropriate of a general internist?

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Performance Indicator # 5: Med-Peds: Clinical Experience Data Peds: How well prepared are you to perform procedures without supervision? (List from PRs) How well prepared are you to perform patient care activities without supervision? How satisfied are you with the patient volume, range of patient ages, variety of medical conditions, and extent of progressive responsibility in the care of patients? How satisfied are you with the educational experiences to help you achieve competency in patient care skills? How satisfied are you with aspects of your longitudinal outpatient experience? Are you well prepared to competently practice general pediatrics?

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Where did most of the NAS data elements come from? In 2009, data modeling project began to identify factors that predicted high and low program performance Model was replicated Data elements were assessed to determine “relative risk” to predict low performance Selection of Elements needed to be Obtainable Meaningful Correlates w/ prior decisions Passed statistical “muster” Used in combination Understand that this is a work-in-progress New data elements likely in future

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Role of Review Committees in NAS Utilize data and judgment to: concentrate efforts on problem programs determine whether accreditation standards are violated and provide useful feedback for programmatic improvement determine whether these violations (citations) rise to a level requiring alteration in accreditation status motivate programs to rapidly improve, rather than playing the “accelerating accreditation action game” over time, understand and refine the nuances of the process How? Annually reviewing programs using set of data elements Using SV as needed, and conducting complete review of the program q10 years Using a “PIF-less”, team based, department wide evaluation of programs

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Two steps forward….

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) NAS Year 1: Ground Rules Basic operational principle of NAS: RCs will take an accreditation action on every program annually. All med-peds programs will receive notice regarding accreditation status btw January and July. At January and March 2014 meeting, RCs reviewed NAS data submitted in AY ADS annual update information submitted in fall of 2012 Faculty and Resident survey data from early spring of 2013 Responses to “previous citations” was current

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) NAS Year 1: Ground Rules All programs on warning or probation seen by reviewers All programs identified by NAS data as “troubled” underwent review by RC staff and then members What data elements were triggered? Not all data elements have same importance/weight Board scores and resident survey have more weight –Cognizant of changes to PR for Board score pass rates for Peds Are programs still getting used to data elements (e.g., scholarly activity table)? Are there patterns/trends in data?

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) What did we expect would happen in NAS?

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) NOT this…

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) In OAS… 82% of med-peds programs had a review cycle between 3-5 years * * ACGME Data Resource Book , based on 78 med-peds programs. Book available on

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) NAS Conceptual Model Expected Outcomes STANDARDSStructureResources Core Process Detailed Process OutcomesSTANDARDSStructureResources Core Process Detailed Process Outcomes Initial Accreditation New Programs Initial Accreditation New Programs StructureResources Core Process Detailed Process Outcomes Withhold Accreditation Withdrawal of Accreditation Withhold Accreditation Withdrawal of Accreditation 2-4% 15%75% 6-8% Accreditation with Warning New Programs, Accredited Programs with Major Concerns Probationary Accreditation Accreditation with Warning New Programs, Accredited Programs with Major Concerns Probationary Accreditation StructureResources Core Process Detailed Process Outcomes ContinuedAccreditation Accredited Programs without Major Concerns Continued Accreditation with Commendation ContinuedAccreditation Accredited Programs without Major Concerns Continued Accreditation with Commendation Structure Core Process Resources Detailed Process Outcomes

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Withdrawal of Accreditation Good Standing 75% Withheld/ Withdrawn 6-8% Warning/ Probation 15% New (Initial) 2-4% NAS Conceptual Model Expected Outcomes

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) NAS Year 1: Expected vs Actual Outcomes NAS Projections 75% 15% 2-4% 6-8% Continued Accreditation (Good Standing) 92%) Warning/Probation 1% New Programs (Initial) 1% * Site visit scheduled 6% 80 Med-Peds Residency Programs

How will NAS change the flow of information and the work of the RC and the program?

Reporting & RC Review Timelines AY

Reporting & RC Review Timelines AY

What new Policies and Procedures do I need to know about ?

Review cycles are gone! Why? Annual Accreditation. Except for new programs, they get 2 yr cycle + a site visit No longer “propose” adverse actions Probation only after site visit Core and Subs have same status options Probation now an option for subs Citations as well as non-citations Core + Subs re-coupled…again Self-study = RC will see entire dept Probation for core = probation for subs Highlights from New P&P Manual

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Accredited Program Continued Accreditation (CA) CA w/Warning Other (e.g. egregious) Site Visit Probationary Accreditation* Withdrawal of Accreditation** CA w/Warning CA *Probation cannot exceed 2 years **Does not require Probation first Accreditation Status Options Continued Accreditation Significant changes: “Continued Accreditation w Warning” appears as such on website; an adverse action no longer “proposed,” can be granted only after a site visit; subs now can also be put on “probationary accreditation.”

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Citations in NAS Citations are not new Identify areas of non-compliance Linked to specific requirements Responses required in ADS Citations are given and removed by RC (not by staff) Phase I specialties: Citations received in NAS (after July 1, 2013): will require an RC member to review annually. Citations received in OAS (given prior to July 1, 2013): will go away after two cycles of continued accreditation in NAS with no new citations.

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Areas for Improvement (AFI) AFIs are new in NAS “General concerns” May be given by staff (RC rules) or by RC members May not be specifically linked to a requirement Do not require written response in ADS Expectation that AFIs will be monitored locally PD and GMEC will work to resolve AFIs will be tracked by RC

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Citations vs AFIs In OAS, the main mechanism to provide feedback was through citations In NAS, we have 2 methods: citations and AFIs Citations require annual review by a member of the RC In all likelihood… citations will be used more sparingly, in hopes that AFI’s trigger appropriate local program improvement.

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Reporting Milestones: Med-Peds ANNUAL reporting of reporting milestones Report BOTH IM (22) and Peds (21) milestones Semiannual evaluation process as usual/required Plan will be revisited AY Reporting period for both IM & Peds milestones = May 1 – June 15, 2014 AY Reporting period for both IM & Peds milestones = May 1 – June 15, 2015

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Reporting Milestones: Use by RCs De-identified, aggregate (program) data will be used as ONE data element RC can look at Cannot be fully used for several years Initially, ascertain that programs are reporting Next, check for completeness of data, etc Review of patterns or trends will be important

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Clinical Competency Committee The PD must appoint a CCC. (Core) Must be composed of at least 3 faculty (Core) Others eligible for appointment to the committee include faculty from other programs and non- physician members of the health care team. (Detail) Written descriptions of responsibilities (Core) Review all resident evaluations semi-annually (Core) Prepare/assure reporting of milestones evaluations of each resident to ACGME semi-annually (Core) Make recommendations to the PD for resident progress, including, promotion, remediation and dismissal (Detail)

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Clinical Competency Committee cont. PRs do not specify composition; each program may decide best structure PRs do not limit PD’s role PRs do not define specialty, degree, role for members of CCC “Best practices” may be defined by community Review FAQ

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Recent News: Single GME Accreditation System

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Other Recent News Faculty Development slide decks available on ACGME’s site Resident survey results will not be available until mid-June ACGME leadership aware this will be problematic for many and agreed to reassess for next yr.

Program Resources ACGME Contacts Questions related to ADS: Samantha Alvarado ; Questions related to site visit: Ingrid Philibert Jane Shapiro Penny Lawrence

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Questions? Questions related to requirements or notification letter: IM Staff: Jerry Vasilias Karen Lambert Billy Hart Jessalynn Watanabe Peds Staff: Caroline Fischer Denise Braun-Hart Kim Rucker Luz Barrera

© 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Thank you. “You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks.” Dorothy Parker