Analysis of the variations between Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements for critical care training programs and their effects on the current critical care workforce.

Adult critical care medicine (CCM) is ill prepared for the demands of an aging US population. Sources have acknowledged a severe shortage of intensivists, yet there has been minimal discussion on the lack of critical care training opportunities. Inconsistencies in training options have led to fragmentation of how critical care services are provided to the US adult population. Significant differences exist between CCM without pulmonary and pulmonary critical care (PCCM) training as it relates to critical care coverage, patient population, and procedural skill of a trainee. The Internal Medicine Residency Review Committee appears more aligned with the PCCM vision of training rather than the CCM; thus, many PCCM programs are more available than pure CCM. Internal medicine offers the greatest pool of candidates to practice full-time CCM, yet there are minimal opportunities for internists wanting to go into straight CCM without also receiving pulmonary training. However, because many PCCM physicians spend a significant amount of time outside critical care, current PCCM training options do not meet the demand for critical care physicians. In this article, we review the barriers to critical care training opportunities and expanding the intensivist workforce and propose reasonable and practical solutions.

Gupta R ，Zad O ，Jimenez E 《-》

Training internists to meet critical care needs in the United States: a consensus statement from the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC).

CCSC Task Force on Critical Care Educational Pathways in Internal Medicine 《-》

Critical care medicine in the United States: addressing the intensivist shortage and image of the specialty.

Halpern NA ，Pastores SM ，Oropello JM ，Kvetan V ... -  《-》

Longitudinal Milestone Assessment Extending Through Subspecialty Training: The Relationship Between ACGME Internal Medicine Residency Milestones and Subsequent Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship Milestones.

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones were implemented across medical subspecialties in 2015. Although milestones were proposed as a longitudinal assessment tool potentially providing opportunities for early implementation of individualized fellowship learning plans, the association of subspecialty fellowship ratings with prior residency ratings remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the relationship between internal medicine (IM) residency milestones and pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship milestones. A multicenter retrospective cohort analysis was conducted for all PCCM trainees in ACGME-accredited PCCM fellowship programs, 2017-2018, who had complete prior IM milestone ratings from 2014 to 2017. Only professionalism and interpersonal and communication skills (ICS) were included based on shared anchors between IM and PCCM milestones. Using a generalized estimating equations model, the association of PCCM milestones ≤ 2.5 during the first fellowship year with corresponding IM subcompetencies was assessed at each time point, nested by program. Statistical significance was determined using logistic regression. The study included 354 unique PCCM fellows. For ICS and professionalism subcompetencies, fellows with higher IM ratings were less likely to obtain PCCM ratings ≤ 2.5 during the first fellowship year. Each ICS subcompetency was significantly associated with future lapses in fellowship (ICS01: β = -0.67, P = .003; ICS02: β = -0.70, P = .001; ICS03: β = -0.60, P = .004) at various residency time points. Similar associations were noted for PROF03 (β = -0.57, P = .007). Findings demonstrated an association between IM milestone ratings and low milestone ratings during PCCM fellowship. IM trainees with low ratings in several professionalism and ICS subcompetencies were more likely to be rated ≤ 2.5 during the first PCCM fellowship year. This highlights a potential use of longitudinal milestones to target educational gaps at the beginning of PCCM fellowship.

Heath JK ，Wang T ，Santhosh L ，Denson JL ，Holmboe E ，Yamazaki K ，Clay AS ，Carlos WG ... -  《-》

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accreditation and influence on perceptions of pediatric otolaryngology fellowship training experience.

The American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology (ASPO) has set a goal of universal accreditation of fellowship programs by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) by 2014. This study offers data comparing trainee experience at accredited vs nonaccredited programs. To evaluate perceptions of pediatric otolaryngology fellowship training experience and to elucidate differences between those who trained in ACGME-accredited fellowships vs those who did not. Web-based survey sent to all members of ASPO, as well as recent fellowship graduate ASPO-eligible physicians. Responses were obtained in an anonymous fashion. The study population comprised 136 ASPO members who recently graduated from pediatric otolaryngology fellowship programs (36 from ACGME-accredited fellowships and 100 from nonaccredited programs). Difference in perceived fellowship experience between graduates of accredited vs nonaccredited programs, specifically, differences in service vs education perceptions. Overall, a majority (64%) of respondents agreed that standardizing the pediatric fellowship curriculum through ACGME accreditation is a worthwhile goal. Those who attended ACGME-accredited fellowships were more likely to favor accreditation vs non-ACGME graduates (83% vs 58%; P = .006). Graduates of ACGME-accredited programs were also more likely to agree that their fellowship provided adequate preparation for a career in academic medicine (100% vs 89%; P = .04), protected time for research (94% vs 60%; P < .001), vacation and academic time (94% vs 78%; P = .03), and opportunities to formally evaluate their superiors (72% vs 32%; P < .001). Non-ACGME graduates reported higher primary call frequency (0.8 days per week vs 0.2 days per week; P = .01), and attending physician participation in rounds (71% vs 53%; P = .05). Most respondents were in agreement with universal ACGME accreditation. Those having trained in accredited programs cite increased allowance for research, academic and vacation time, more formal opportunities to evaluate their faculty, and decreased primary call burden.

Bedwell JR ，Choi S ，Chan K ，Preciado D ... -  《-》