PURPOSE: This study sought to investigate whether an institution's Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC) could develop a system of continuous quality improvement of its residency programs using an annual survey provided by the institution for all residents. METHOD: Beginning in 2000, residents were surveyed annually about their educational and work environments. The GMEC determined standards of performance for the items on the survey based on four areas commonly cited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education: supervision, feedback/evaluation, scholarly time, and duty hours. Residency program directors submitted action plans to improve those areas rated below the standard by the residents in the program. RESULTS: The 2000 survey served as baseline. In 2001, residency programs met the standard for 55.2% of the items, and 18 programs submitted 67 action plans. In 2002, programs met the standard for 80.6% of the items. For the items below standard, programs showed improvement in 14.9% and declined in 4.5% of the items compared with baseline. Six of the 18 programs had accreditation site visits during the study period. Five received no citations in the targeted areas. The sixth program was visited three months after it developed action plans for its six deficient areas. It received citations for two of the six areas. CONCLUSION: An institution that sponsors residency programs can develop and sustain an effective system to continuously monitor and evaluate its programs and improve the educational quality as evidenced by successful accreditation decisions.
PURPOSE: This study sought to investigate whether an institution's Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC) could develop a system of continuous quality improvement of its residency programs using an annual survey provided by the institution for all residents. METHOD: Beginning in 2000, residents were surveyed annually about their educational and work environments. The GMEC determined standards of performance for the items on the survey based on four areas commonly cited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education: supervision, feedback/evaluation, scholarly time, and duty hours. Residency program directors submitted action plans to improve those areas rated below the standard by the residents in the program. RESULTS: The 2000 survey served as baseline. In 2001, residency programs met the standard for 55.2% of the items, and 18 programs submitted 67 action plans. In 2002, programs met the standard for 80.6% of the items. For the items below standard, programs showed improvement in 14.9% and declined in 4.5% of the items compared with baseline. Six of the 18 programs had accreditation site visits during the study period. Five received no citations in the targeted areas. The sixth program was visited three months after it developed action plans for its six deficient areas. It received citations for two of the six areas. CONCLUSION: An institution that sponsors residency programs can develop and sustain an effective system to continuously monitor and evaluate its programs and improve the educational quality as evidenced by successful accreditation decisions.
Authors: Milou E W M Silkens; Onyebuchi A Arah; Albert J J A Scherpbier; Maas Jan Heineman; Kiki M J M H Lombarts Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Monica L Lypson; Mark E P Prince; Steven J Kasten; Nicholas H Osborne; Richard H Cohan; Terry Kowalenko; Paul J Dougherty; R Kevin Reynolds; M Catherine Spires; Jeffrey H Kozlow; Scott D Gitlin Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Milou E W M Silkens; Kiki M J M H Lombarts; Albert J J A Scherpbier; Maas Jan Heineman; Onyebuchi A Arah Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 2.463