PURPOSE: In 1999 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandated that GME programs require their residents to be proficient in six general competencies. The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether an existing global rating form could be modified to assess these competencies. METHOD: A rating form covering 23 skills described in the ACGME competencies was developed. The directors of 92 specialty and subspecialty programs at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia were asked to rate residents at the end of the 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years. RESULTS: Ratings for 1,295 of 1,367 (95%) residents were available. Residents were awarded the highest mean ratings on items tied to professionalism, compassion, and empathy. The lowest mean ratings were assigned for items related to consideration of costs in care and management of resources. Factor analysis indicated that the program directors viewed overall competence in two dimensions of medical knowledge and interpersonal skills. This factor structure was stable for groups of specialties, and residents' gender and training level. Mean ratings in each dimension were progressively higher for residents at advanced levels of training. CONCLUSION: Global rating forms, the tool that program directors use most frequently to document residents' competence, may not be adequate to assess the six general competencies. The results are consistent with earlier published research indicating that physicians view competence in just two broad dimensions, which questions the premise of the six ACGME competencies. Further research is needed to validate and measure six distinct dimensions of clinical competence.
PURPOSE: In 1999 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandated that GME programs require their residents to be proficient in six general competencies. The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether an existing global rating form could be modified to assess these competencies. METHOD: A rating form covering 23 skills described in the ACGME competencies was developed. The directors of 92 specialty and subspecialty programs at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia were asked to rate residents at the end of the 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years. RESULTS: Ratings for 1,295 of 1,367 (95%) residents were available. Residents were awarded the highest mean ratings on items tied to professionalism, compassion, and empathy. The lowest mean ratings were assigned for items related to consideration of costs in care and management of resources. Factor analysis indicated that the program directors viewed overall competence in two dimensions of medical knowledge and interpersonal skills. This factor structure was stable for groups of specialties, and residents' gender and training level. Mean ratings in each dimension were progressively higher for residents at advanced levels of training. CONCLUSION: Global rating forms, the tool that program directors use most frequently to document residents' competence, may not be adequate to assess the six general competencies. The results are consistent with earlier published research indicating that physicians view competence in just two broad dimensions, which questions the premise of the six ACGME competencies. Further research is needed to validate and measure six distinct dimensions of clinical competence.
Authors: Michael L Green; Eva M Aagaard; Kelly J Caverzagie; Davoren A Chick; Eric Holmboe; Gregory Kane; Cynthia D Smith; William Iobst Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2009-09
Authors: Eric S Holmboe; Judith L Bowen; Michael Green; Jessica Gregg; Lorenzo DiFrancesco; Eileen Reynolds; Patrick Alguire; David Battinelli; Catherine Lucey; Daniel Duffy Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.128