PubMed · 15224664
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. 2004. Accreditation manual errata for all programs.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15224664/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: In 1998, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) added the stipulation that each institution providing graduate medical education (GME) have a Designated Institutional Official (DIO). Little is known about the effect of new accreditation requirements on GME practice and outcomes. The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey designed to provide descriptive data about DIOs and to validate a DIO Responsibility Scale (DIORS). METHOD: DIOs were identified by the ACGME. The following delivery strategy was used to administer the survey from January 2004 to May 2004: prenotice letter; survey with self-addressed, stamped return envelope and cover letter; thank-you/reminder postcard; and replacement survey with new cover letter and self-addressed, stamped return envelope. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 243 of 363 DIOs (66.9%). Responses indicated wide ranges in DIO titles, report titles, time spent accomplishing responsibilities, DIO-specific salaries, credentials, and Graduate Medical Education Committee reporting arrangements. DIOs reported confusion or overlap between DIO and program director roles (72.0%), decreasing funding for GME (50.6%), and inadequate support staff (25.1%). The 11-item DIO Responsibility Scale demonstrated a Cronbach alpha of .86 and a statistically significant relationship to five variables selected to establish construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variability in DIO characteristics found in this study supports the premise that the DIO role is underdeveloped. The authors established the reliability and validity of the DIORS, which now may be used in future research of the DIO role. The data from this study may be used by DIOs and institutions to develop the role further, improve DIO performance, and create more useful job descriptions.
BACKGROUND: In July 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) instituted new resident work hour mandates, which are being shown to improve resident well-being and patient safety. However, there are limited data on the impact these new mandates may have on educational activities. PURPOSES: To assess the impact on educational activities of a day float system created to meet ACGME work hour mandates. METHODS: The inpatient ward coverage was changed by adding a day float team responsible for new patient admissions in the morning, with the on-call teams starting later and being responsible for new patient admissions thereafter. I surveyed the residents to assess the impact of this new system on educational activities-resident autonomy, attending teaching, conference attendance, resident teaching, self-directed learning, and ability to complete patient care responsibilities. RESULTS: There was no adverse effect of the day float system on educational activities. House staff reported increased autonomy, enhanced teaching from attending physicians, and improved ability to complete patient care responsibilities. Additionally, house staff demonstrated improved compliance with the ACGME mandates. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a novel day float system for the inpatient medicine ward service improved compliance with ACGME work duty requirements and did not adversely impact educational activities of the residency training program.
We compared the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project to the long-standing requirement of the American Board of Anesthesiology for a Clinical Competence Committee Report. There are many similarities between these two systems of resident evaluation. However, the ACGME Outcome Project requires the use of more numerous and diverse metrics when compared with the traditional global evaluation alone. In addition, the Clinical Competence Committee Report is primarily a summative evaluation for the purpose of assigning credit for training. The ACGME Outcome Project may be used as a component of a summative evaluation, but the primary emphasis is on formative assessment.