The American College of Surgeons Entering Resident Readiness Assessment (ACS ERRA): Validity Evidence From a Three-Year National Study.

OBJECTIVE: To gather validity evidence supporting the use and interpretation of scores from the American College of Surgeons Entering Resident Readiness Assessment (ACS ERRA) Program. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: ACS ERRA is an online formative assessment program developed to assess entering surgery residents' ability to make critical clinical decisions, and includes 12 clinical areas and 20 topics identified by a national panel of surgeon educators and residency program directors. METHODS: Data from 3 national testing administrations of ACS ERRA (2018-2020) were used to gather validity evidence regarding content, response process, internal structure (reliability), relations to other variables, and consequences. RESULTS: Over the 3 administrations, 1975 surgery residents participated from 125 distinct residency programs. Overall scores [Mean = 64% (SD = 7%)] remained consistent across the 3 years ( P = 0.670). There were no significant differences among resident characteristics (gender, age, international medical graduate status). The mean case discrimination index was 0.54 [SD = 0.15]. Kappa inter-rater reliability for scoring was 0.87; the overall test score reliability (G-coefficient) was 0.86 (Ф-coefficient = 0.83). Residents who completed residency readiness programs had higher ACS ERRA scores (66% versus 63%, Cohen's d = 0.23, P < 0.001). On average, 15% of decisions made (21/140 per test) involved potentially harmful actions. Variability in scores from graduating medical schools (7%) carried over twice as much weight than from matched residency programs (3%). CONCLUSIONS: ACS ERRA scores provide valuable information to entering surgery residents and surgery program directors to aid in development of individual and group learning plans.

Resident Readiness for Senior Level Decision Making: Identifying the Domains for Formative Assessment and Feedback.

OBJECTIVE: To establish expert consensus regarding the domains and topics for senior surgery residents (PGY-4) to make critical decisions and assume senior-level responsibilities, and to develop the formative American College of Surgeons Senior Resident Readiness Assessment (ACS SRRA) Program. DESIGN: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) education leadership team conducted a focus group with surgical experts to identify the content for an assessment tool to evaluate senior residents' readiness for their increased levels of responsibility. After the focus group, national experts were recruited to develop consensus on the topics through three rounds of surveys using Delphi methodology. The Delphi participants rated topics using Likert-type scales and their comments were incorporated into subsequent rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement with internal-consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) ≥ 0.8. In a stepwise fashion, topics that did not achieve consensus for inclusion were removed from subsequent survey rounds. SETTING: The surveys were administered via an online questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve program directors and assistant program directors made up the focus group. The 39 Delphi participants represented seven different surgical subspecialties and were from diverse practice settings. The median length of experience in general surgery resident education was 20 years (IQR 14.3-30.0) with 64% of the experts being either current or past general surgery residency program directors. RESULTS: The response rate was 100% and Cronbach's alpha was ≥ 0.9 for each round. The Delphi participants contributed a large number of comments. Of the 201 topics that were evaluated initially, 120 topics in 25 core clinical areas were included to create the final domains of ACS SRRA. CONCLUSIONS: National consensus on the domain of the ACS SRRA has been achieved via the modified Delphi method among expert surgeon educators. ACS SRRA will identify clinical topics and areas in which each senior resident needs improvement and provide data to residents and residency programs to develop individualized learning plans. This would help in preparing the senior residents to assume their responsibilities and support their readiness for future fellowship training or surgical practice.

The American College of Surgeons Entering Resident Readiness Assessment Program: Development and National Pilot Testing Results.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the readiness of entering residents for clinical responsibilities, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Division of Education developed the "Entering Resident Readiness Assessment" (ACS-ERRA) Program. SUMMARY BACKGROUND: ACS-ERRA is an online formative assessment that uses a key features approach to measure clinical decision-making skills and focuses on cases encountered at the beginning of residency. Results can be used to develop learning plans to address areas that may need reinforcement. METHODS: A national panel of 16 content experts, 3 medical educators, and a psychometrician developed 98 short, key features cases. Each case required medical knowledge to be applied appropriately at challenging decision points during case management. Four pilot testing studies were conducted sequentially to gather validity evidence. RESULTS: Residents from programs across the United States participated in the studies (n = 58, 20, 87, 154, respectively). Results from the pilot studies enabled improvements after each pilot test. For the psychometric pilot (final pilot test), 2 parallel test forms of the ACS-ERRA were administered, each containing 40 cases, resulting in overall mean testing time of 2 hours 2 minutes (SD = 43 min). The mean test score was 61% (SD = 9%) and the G-coefficient reliability was 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: Results can be used to identify strengths and weaknesses in residents' decision-making skills and yield valuable information to create individualized learning plans. The data can also support efforts directed at the transition into residency training and inform discussions about levels of supervision. In addition, surgery program directors can use the aggregate test results to make curricular changes.

Intraoperative hypotensive resuscitation for patients undergoing laparotomy or thoracotomy for trauma: Early termination of a randomized prospective clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhagic shock is responsible for one third of trauma related deaths. We hypothesized that intraoperative hypotensive resuscitation would improve survival for patients undergoing operative control of hemorrhage following penetrating trauma. METHODS: Between July 1, 2007, and March 28, 2013, penetrating trauma patients aged 14 years to 45 years with a systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or lower requiring laparotomy or thoracotomy for control of hemorrhage were randomized 1:1 based on a target minimum mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 50 mm Hg (experimental arm, LMAP) or 65 mm Hg (control arm, HMAP). Patients were followed up 30 days postoperatively. The primary outcome of mortality; secondary outcomes including stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, coagulopathy, and infection; and other clinical data were analyzed between study arms using univariate and Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 168 patients (86 LMAP, 82 HMAP patients) before early termination, in part because of clinical equipoise and futility. Injuries resulted from gunshot wounds (76%) and stab wounds (24%); 90% of the patients were male, and the median age was 31 years. Baseline vitals, laboratory results, and injury severity were similar between groups. Intraoperative MAP was 65.5 ± 11.6 mm Hg in the LMAP group and 69.1 ± 13.8 mm Hg in the HMAP group (p = 0.07). No significant survival advantage existed for the LMAP group at 30 days (p = 0.48) or 24 hours (p = 0.27). Secondary outcomes were similar for the LMAP and HMAP groups: acute myocardial infarction (1% vs. 2%), stroke (0% vs. 3%), any renal failure (15% vs. 12%), coagulopathy (28% vs. 29%), and infection (59% vs. 58%) (p > 0.05 for all). Acute renal injury occurred less often in the LMAP than in HMAP group (13% vs. 30%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study was unable to demonstrate that hypotensive resuscitation at a target MAP of 50 mm Hg could significantly improve 30-day mortality. Further study is necessary to fully realize the benefits of hypotensive resuscitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level II.