The Cost of Compliance: The Financial Burden of Fulfilling Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and American Board of Surgery Requirements

Trends in ACGME Accreditation of Orthopedic Surgery Fellowship Training

Currently, most surgeons pursue subspecialty fellowship training. This study answers the following questions: (1) How does the rate of fellowship training in orthopedic surgery compare with that in other surgical specialties? (2) To what extent did adoption of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation change from 2013 to 2021? Orthopedic subspecialties were analyzed for total number of fellowship programs and positions in the 2013 and 2021 Match. Rates of ACGME accreditation were analyzed via chi-square tests. In 2021, orthopedic surgery had the highest rate of fellowship selection (94%) relative to general surgery (77%), ophthalmology (66%), plastic surgery (63%), and otolaryngology (55%). Across all orthopedic subspecialties, the percentage of ACGME accreditation decreased among fellowship programs (53% in 2013 to 48% in 2021, P=.166) and positions (58% in 2013 to 50% in 2021, P<.001). Orthopedic sports medicine had the highest adoption of ACGME accreditation (100%), followed by hand surgery (99%), musculoskeletal oncology (67%), and pediatric orthopedics (56%). Significant increases in the adoption of ACGME accreditation were noted for orthopedic sports medicine (93% in 2013 to 100% in 2021, P=.016) and hand surgery (81% in 2013 to 99% in 2021, P<.001). There was a significant decrease in ACGME accreditation for adult reconstructive orthopedics (40% in 2013 to 24% in 2021, P=.042), driven by the increase in unaccredited fellowship programs. Accreditation of orthopedic subspecialty fellowship training has decreased with respect to the proportion of accredited training positions. More research is needed to understand the benefits of ACGME accreditation for fellowship training in orthopedic surgery. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(1):57-63.].

Defining a High-Quality and Effective Morbidity and Mortality Conference: A Systematic Review

Importance

Morbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) are thought to advance trainee education, quality improvement (QI), and faculty development. However, there is considerable variability with regard to their completion.

Objective

To compile and analyze the literature describing the format, design, and other attributes of MMCs that appear to best advance their stated objectives related to QI and practitioner education.

Evidence Review

For this systematic review, a literature search with terms combining conference and QI or morbidity and mortality was performed in January 2022, using the PubMed, Embase, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) databases with no date restrictions. Included studies were published in English and described surgical or nonsurgical MMCs with explicit reference to quality or system improvement, education, professional development, or patient outcomes; these studies were classified by design as survey based, intervention based, or other methodologies. For survey-based studies, positively and negatively regarded attributes of conference design, format, and completion were extracted. For intervention-based studies, details of the intervention and their impact on stated MMC objectives were abstracted. Principal study findings were summarized for the other group. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction and analysis were completed between January 2022 and December 2022.

Findings

A total of 59 studies met appropriateness for study inclusion. The mean MERSQI score for the included studies was 6.7 (range, 5.0-9.5) of a maximum possible 18, which implied that the studies were of average quality. The evidence suggested that preparation and postconference follow-up regarding QI initiatives are equally as important as both (1) succinctly presenting case details, opportunities for improvement, and educational topics and (2) creating a constructive space for accountability, engagement, and multistakeholder discussion.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that the published literature on MMCs provides substantial insight into the optimal format, design, and related attributes of an effective MMC. This systematic review provides a road map for surgical departments to improve MMCs in order to align their format and design with their principal objectives related to practitioner and trainee education, error prevention, and QI.

Nephrology Program Director Protected Time for Program Administration in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) required that program directors receive 10-20 h/wk of protected time for program administration (including didactic teaching). In July 2022, this was reduced for all internal medicine subspecialties on the basis of program size, with 8 h/wk required for programs with fewer than seven fellows, the majority of nephrology programs.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We surveyed all 151 US adult nephrology program directors (ACGME Public List of Programs 2021-2022) to determine how much protected time they receive, how much they think is necessary, and the division of their professional time. The anonymous 20-question online survey was administered from March 31 to April 30, 2022. The analysis was descriptive.

RESULTS

Response rate was 66% (99 of 151). Geographic distribution and approved fellow positions were similar to programs nationally; 59% had fewer than seven approved positions. Median protected time was 10 h/wk (interquartile range, 5-10), with 8 h/wk (interquartile range, 5-10) for those with fewer than seven positions. Program directors estimated needing 12 h/wk (interquartile range, 10-16) to effectively administer programs, including those with fewer than seven positions, a median 5 h/wk (interquartile range, 0-7) more than received. Of program directors reporting <10 h/wk for program administration, 62% provided >20 hours of direct patient care. Thirty-nine percent had no protected time for core faculty. Fellow recruitment (68%) was the most time-consuming task, and didactic teaching (80%) was the most professionally rewarding.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately half of the nephrology programs surveyed were not in compliance with the ACGME-stipulated 10-h/wk minimum protected time for the 2021-2022 training year. Program directors estimated a median of 12 h/wk are needed to effectively manage programs.

Value of Standardized Testing in Surgical Training

Standardized testing remains a cornerstone of assessment in surgical education. Summative standardized tests make up a bulk of the certification requirements that encompasses demonstration of efficient, safe application of clinically relevant surgical knowledge and skills. Formative standardized tests serve similar role to guide teaching endeavors for the programs and comparison of individual trainees on a national level. Ongoing rigorous psychometric evaluations of the standardized tests ensure reliability and validity; however, standardized tests are not without their limitations and biases.

Surgical Residents' Perceptions of the Impact of Productivity-Based Faculty Compensation at an Academic Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Academic medical centers have increasingly adopted productivity-based compensation models for faculty. The potential exists for conflict between financial incentives and the quality of surgical resident education. This study aims to examine surgical residents' perceptions regarding the impact of productivity-based compensation on education.

METHODS

Following implementation of a productivity-based compensation plan, a survey of surgical residents (general surgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, urology, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery) was conducted to examine perceptions of its impact on didactics, patient care, surgical technique, teaching in the operating room, and financial considerations. Survey data were prospectively collected and analyzed. A retrospective analysis of relative value units (RVUs) was also performed.

RESULTS

Following implementation of the productivity-based compensation plan, annual work RVUs increased by 8.9% in surgery as a whole, with increases observed within all surgical subspecialties. A total of 100 surveys were sent and 35 were completed (35% response rate and at least 30% within each surgical subspecialty). Forty-nine percent of participants perceived an increased focus on clinical productivity by faculty. Thirty-seven percent reported learning more about RVUs and Current Procedural Terminology coding. Most residents reported that the compensation plan did not have an impact on their education with respect to didactics (77%), patient care (94%), surgical technique (97%), and teaching in the operating room (83%).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased clinical productivity in the setting of an RVU-based compensation plan was not perceived by most surgical residents to have impacted their education. In some cases, this model may enhance education in relation to RVUs, Current Procedural Terminology coding, and the financial aspects of surgery.