Can ACGME Milestones predict surgical specialty board passage: an example in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Medical School Rankings: Time to End or Time to Amend?

ABSTRACT

The recent decisions of several medical schools to no longer participate in the rankings published annually by U.S. News & World Report have added greater visibility to the issues surrounding medical school rankings than ever before. While these announcements garnered significant attention in academic medicine and from the lay public, the authors believe these events are unlikely to eliminate rankings in medical education. In this article, the authors outline the potential harms of rankings in higher education, provide a rationale for why they will likely endure despite recent scrutiny, and offer suggestions for prospective students and the academic medical community to engage with rankings in a more productive way. Criticisms of medical school rankings have been noted for decades, including their use of subjective information and data with questionable relevance to the quality of students' education or the outcomes of their educational experience, methodological concerns, and the potential harms of ranking systems (such as schools diverting their focus and resources away from initiatives that benefit students to improve their ranking). At the same time, rankings are ubiquitous in today's culture and are powerful in human decision-making, so there is reason to believe that medical school rankings may weather the current storm. Given these concerns, the authors suggest students continue to use a variety of resources to obtain information about medical schools and consider how each school fits with their own educational needs. The authors also encourage medical schools, medical education organizations, and governing medical bodies to suggest different metrics that reflect quality in medical education and that are of importance to applicants.

Detecting residents at risk of attrition - A Singapore pathology residency's experience

The SingHealth Pathology Residency Program (SHPRP) is a 5-year postgraduate training program in Singapore. We face the problem of resident attrition, which has a significant impact on the individual, program and healthcare providers. Our residents are regularly evaluated, using in-house evaluations as well as assessments required in our partnership with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education International (ACGME-I). We hence sought to determine if these assessments were able to distinguish residents who would attrite from residents who would graduate successfully. Retrospective analysis of existing residency assessments was performed on all residents who have separated from SHPRP and compared with residents currently in senior residency or graduated from the program. Statistical analysis was performed on quantitative assessment methods of Resident In-Service Examination (RISE), 360-degree feedback, faculty assessment, Milestones and our own annual departmental mock examination. Word frequency analysis of narrative feedback from faculty assessment was used to generate themes. Since 2011, 10 out of 34 residents have separated from the program. RISE, Milestone data and the departmental mock examination showed statistical significance in discriminating residents at risk of attrition for specialty-related reasons from successful residents. Analysis of narrative feedback showed that successful residents performed better in areas of organization, preparation with clinical history, application of knowledge, interpersonal communication and achieving sustained progress. Existing assessment methods used in our pathology residency program are effective in detecting residents at risk of attrition. This also suggests applications in the way that we select, assess and teach residents.