Practicing emergency physicians report performing well on most emergency medicine milestones.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System endorsed specialty-specific milestones as the foundation of an outcomes-based resident evaluation process. These milestones represent five competency levels (entry level to expert), and graduating residents will be expected to meet Level 4 on all 23 milestones. Limited validation data on these milestones exist. It is unclear if higher levels represent true competencies of practicing emergency medicine (EM) attendings. Our aim was to examine how practicing EM attendings in academic and community settings self-evaluate on the new EM milestones. An electronic self-evaluation survey outlining 9 of the 23 EM milestones was sent to a sample of practicing EM attendings in academic and community settings. Attendings were asked to identify which level was appropriate for them. Seventy-nine attendings were surveyed, with an 89% response rate. Sixty-one percent were academic. Twenty-three percent (95% confidence interval [CI] 20%-27%) of all responses were Levels 1, 2, or 3; 38% (95% CI 34%-42%) were Level 4; and 39% (95% CI 35%-43%) were Level 5. Seventy-seven percent of attendings found themselves to be Level 4 or 5 in eight of nine milestones. Only 47% found themselves to be Level 4 or 5 in ultrasound skills (p = 0.0001). Although a majority of EM attendings reported meeting Level 4 milestones, many felt they did not meet Level 4 criteria. Attendings report less perceived competence in ultrasound skills than other milestones. It is unclear if self-assessments reflect the true competency of practicing attendings. The study design can be useful to define the accuracy, precision, and validity of milestones for any medical field.

Peck TC ，Dubosh N ，Rosen C ，Tibbles C ，Pope J ，Fisher J ... -  《JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE》

How competent are emergency medicine interns for level 1 milestones: who is responsible?

The Next Accreditation System (NAS) of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) includes the implementation of developmental milestones for each specialty. The milestones include five progressively advancing skill levels, with Level 1 defining the skill level of a medical student graduate, and Level 5, that of an attending physician. The goal of this study was to query interns on how well they thought their medical school had prepared them to meet the proposed emergency medicine (EM) Level 1 milestones. In July 2012, an electronic survey was distributed to the interns of 13 EM residency programs, asking interns whether they were taught and assessed on the proposed Level 1 milestones. Of possible participants, 113 of 161 interns responded (70% response rate). The interns represented all four regions of the country. The interns responded that the rates of Level 1 milestones they had been taught ranged from 61% for ultrasound to 98% for performance of focused history and physical examination. A substantial number of interns (up to 39%) reported no instruction on milestones such as patient disposition, pain management, and vascular access. Graduating medical students were less commonly assessed than taught the milestones. Skills with technology, including "explain the role of the electronic health record and computerized physician order entry," were assessed for only 39% of interns, and knowledge (USMLE) and history and physical were assessed in nearly all interns. Disposition, ultrasound, multitasking, and wound management were assessed less than half of the time. Many entering EM interns may not have had either teaching or assessment on the knowledge, skills, and behaviors making up the Level 1 milestones expected for graduating medical students. Thus, there is a potential gap in the teaching and assessment of EM interns. Based on these findings, it is unclear who will be responsible (medical schools, EM clerkships, or residency programs) for ensuring that medical students entering residency have achieved Level 1 milestones.

Santen SA ，Rademacher N ，Heron SL ，Khandelwal S ，Hauff S ，Hopson L ... -  《-》

Emergency Medicine Residents Consistently Rate Themselves Higher than Attending Assessments on ACGME Milestones.

Goldflam K ，Bod J ，Della-Giustina D ，Tsyrulnik A ... -  《-》

The development of the emergency medicine milestones.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has outlined its "Next Accreditation System" (NAS) that will focus on resident and residency outcome measurements. Emergency medicine (EM) is one of seven specialties that will implement the NAS beginning July 2013. All other specialties will follow in July 2014. A key component of the NAS is the development of assessable milestones, which are explicit accomplishments or behaviors that occur during the process of residency education. Milestones describe competencies more specifically and identify specialty-specific knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors (KSABs) that can be used as outcome measures within the general competencies. The ACGME and the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) convened an EM milestone working group to develop the EM milestones. This article describes the development, use within the NAS, and challenges of the EM milestones.

Beeson MS ，Carter WA ，Christopher TA ，Heidt JW ，Jones JH ，Meyer LE ，Promes SB ，Rodgers KG ，Shayne PH ，Swing SR ，Wagner MJ ... -  《-》

Ultrasound competency assessment in emergency medicine residency programs.

In the Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine (EM), bedside ultrasound (US) is listed as one of the essential procedural skills. EM milestones released by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and American Board of Emergency Medicine require residents to demonstrate competency in bedside US. The purpose of this study was to assess the current methods used by EM residency training programs to evaluate resident competency in bedside US. This was a cross-sectional survey study. A questionnaire on US education and competency assessment was electronically sent to all EM residency program directors and emergency US directors. The survey consisted of questions regarding the US rotation, structure of US curriculum, presence of US fellowship, image archiving, quality assurance methods, feedback, competency assessment tools, and frequency of assessment. The survey responses are reported as the percentages of total respondents along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 124 of 161 EM residency programs participated in this study, representing a 77% response rate. Twenty-six percent (95% CI = 18% to 34%) of programs assess competency only at the end of the US rotation. Eight percent (95% CI = 3% to 13%) assess competency only every 6 months, and 13% (95% CI = 7% to 19%) assess competency only annually. Eight percent (95% CI = 3% to 13%) assess competency only during the final year of training. Thirty percent (95% CI = 22% to 38%) of programs assess competency with a combination of the above intervals, and 16% (95% CI = 10% to 22%) do not assess US competency. Fourteen percent (95% CI = 8% to 20%) use objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), and 21% (95% CI = 14% to 28%) use standardized direct observation tools (SDOTs) to assess resident competency in US. Approximately one-third (33%, 95% CI = 24% to 41%) of standardized testing for US competency is conducted with multiple-choice questions. Thirty percent (95% CI = 21% to 38%) administer practical examinations to assess US skills. Currently, a majority of EM residency programs assess resident competency in bedside US. However, there is significant variation in the methods of competency assessment.

Amini R ，Adhikari S ，Fiorello A 《-》