BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires sponsoring institutions to demonstrate effective oversight through an annual institutional review (AIR). The ACGME only requires 3 elements to be reported, and it is up to the discretion of the designated institutional official (DIO) whether other supporting information should be included. This leads to uncertainty and inconsistency for DIOs as they decide what to report. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed DIOs in an effort to provide national data on key performance indicators and other relevant components of the AIR process. METHODS: In July 2019, we conducted a national survey of 847 DIOs. The survey had 16 questions that explored basic institutional demographics, timelines, and processes for the AIR and key performance indicators. Written answers were grouped by similar responses, and we performed descriptive statistics on all variables to assess distributions of responses. We also explored associations between variables using cross-tabulation and chi-square statistics. RESULTS: A total of 267 DIOs responded to the survey (32% response rate). There were 7 institutional performance measures that achieved over 50% consensus. These reviews required the majority of DIOs (62%, 167 of 267) 5 to 20 hours to complete. Less than one-third of sponsoring institutions reported diversity data. The majority of DIOs (68%, 182 of 267) felt the AIR process added substantial value. CONCLUSIONS: This survey reports key performance measures and processes included by DIOs in the AIR. Our results show a wide range of institutional responses though consensus was achieved on 7 key performance measures.
BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires sponsoring institutions to demonstrate effective oversight through an annual institutional review (AIR). The ACGME only requires 3 elements to be reported, and it is up to the discretion of the designated institutional official (DIO) whether other supporting information should be included. This leads to uncertainty and inconsistency for DIOs as they decide what to report. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed DIOs in an effort to provide national data on key performance indicators and other relevant components of the AIR process. METHODS: In July 2019, we conducted a national survey of 847 DIOs. The survey had 16 questions that explored basic institutional demographics, timelines, and processes for the AIR and key performance indicators. Written answers were grouped by similar responses, and we performed descriptive statistics on all variables to assess distributions of responses. We also explored associations between variables using cross-tabulation and chi-square statistics. RESULTS: A total of 267 DIOs responded to the survey (32% response rate). There were 7 institutional performance measures that achieved over 50% consensus. These reviews required the majority of DIOs (62%, 167 of 267) 5 to 20 hours to complete. Less than one-third of sponsoring institutions reported diversity data. The majority of DIOs (68%, 182 of 267) felt the AIR process added substantial value. CONCLUSIONS: This survey reports key performance measures and processes included by DIOs in the AIR. Our results show a wide range of institutional responses though consensus was achieved on 7 key performance measures.