Administration of the American Board of Anesthesiology's virtual APPLIED Examination: successes, challenges, and lessons learned.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Board of Anesthesiology transitioned from in-person to virtual administration of its APPLIED Examination, assessing more than 3000 candidates for certification purposes remotely in 2021. Four hundred examiners were involved in delivering and scoring Standardized Oral Examinations (SOEs) and Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). More than 80% of candidates started their exams on time and stayed connected throughout the exam without any problems. Only 74 (2.5%) SOE and 45 (1.5%) OSCE candidates required rescheduling due to technical difficulties. Of those who experienced "significant issues", concerns with OSCE technical stations (interpretation of monitors and interpretation of echocardiograms) were reported most frequently (6% of candidates). In contrast, 23% of examiners "sometimes" lost connectivity during their multiple exam sessions, on a continuum from minor inconvenience to inability to continue. 84% of SOE candidates and 89% of OSCE candidates described "smooth" interactions with examiners and standardized patients/standardized clinicians, respectively. However, only 71% of SOE candidates and 75% of OSCE candidates considered themselves to be able to demonstrate their knowledge and skills without obstacles. When compared with their in-person experiences, approximately 40% of SOE examiners considered virtual evaluation to be more difficult than in-person evaluation and believed the remote format negatively affected their development as an examiner. The virtual format was considered to be less secure by 56% and 40% of SOE and OSCE examiners, respectively. The retirement of exam materials used virtually due to concern for compromise had implications for subsequent exam development. The return to in-person exams in 2022 was prompted by multiple factors, especially concerns regarding standardization and security. The technology is not yet perfect, especially for testing in-person communication skills and displaying dynamic exam materials. Nevertheless, the American Board of Anesthesiology's experience demonstrated the feasibility of conducting large-scale, high-stakes oral and performance exams in a virtual format and highlighted the adaptability and dedication of candidates, examiners, and administering board staff.

A Comparison of Psychometric Properties of the American Board of Anesthesiology's In-Person and Virtual Standardized Oral Examinations.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted training institutions and national credentialing organizations to administer examinations virtually. This study compared task difficulty, examiner grading, candidate performance, and other psychometric properties between in-person and virtual standardized oral examinations (SOEs) administered by the American Board of Anesthesiology. METHOD: This retrospective study included SOEs administered in person from March 2018 through March 2020 and virtually from December 2020 through November 2021. The in-person and virtual SOEs share the same structure, including 4 tasks of preoperative evaluation, intraoperative management, postoperative care, and additional topics. The Many-Facet Rasch Model was used to estimate candidate performance, examiner grading severity, and task difficulty for the in-person and virtual SOEs separately; the virtual SOE was equated to the in-person SOE by common examiners and all tasks. The independent-samples and partially overlapping-samples t tests were used to compare candidate performance and examiner grading severity between these 2 formats, respectively. RESULTS: In-person (n = 3,462) and virtual (n = 2,959) first-time candidates were comparable in age, sex, race and ethnicity, and whether they were U.S. medical school graduates. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) candidate performance was 2.96 (1.76) logits for the virtual SOE, which was statistically significantly better than that for the in-person SOE (mean [SD], 2.86 [1.75]; Welch independent-samples t test, P = .02); however, the effect size was negligible (Cohen d = 0.06). The difference in the grading severity of examiners who rated the in-person (n = 398; mean [SD], 0.00 [0.73]) vs virtual (n = 341; mean [SD], 0.07 [0.77]) SOE was not statistically significant (Welch partially overlapping-samples t test, P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Candidate performance and examiner grading severity were comparable between the in-person and virtual SOEs, supporting the reliability and validity of the virtual oral exam in this large-volume, high-stakes setting.

Comparing characteristics and perspectives of U.S. anesthesiology fellows in training and anesthesiologists in their first year of practice.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate relationships between demographics, professional characteristics, and perceived challenges facing the specialty of anesthesiology among physicians who entered a fellowship and those who started independent practice immediately after finishing a U.S. anesthesiology residency. METHODS: Anesthesiologists in the year after their residency graduation were invited to take an online survey during the academic years of 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019, with questions about their personal characteristics, the nature of their professional lives, and their perceptions of the greatest challenge facing the profession of anesthesiology. RESULTS: A total of 884 fellows-in-training and 735 anesthesiologists starting independent practice right after the completion of their residency responded. Fellows were slightly younger (mean = 33.2 vs. 34.0 years old, p < 0.001), were more likely to have a spouse who works outside the home (63.9% vs. 57.0%, p = 0.002), had fewer children (mean = 0.69 vs. 0.88, p < 0.001), worked more hours per week (mean = 56.2 vs. 52.4, p < 0.001), and were less likely to report a personal and professional life balance (66.4% vs. 72.3% positive, p = 0.005) than direct-entry anesthesiologists. Fellows and direct-entry anesthesiologists identified similar challenges in three broad themes - workforce competition (80.3% and 71.8%), healthcare system changes (30.0% and 37.9%), and personal challenges (6.4% and 8.8%). Employment security issues posed by non-physician anesthesia providers and perceived lack of appreciation of anesthesiologists' value were commonly cited. Relative weighting of challenge concerns varied between fellows and direct-entry physicians, as well as within these groups based on gender, fellowship subspecialty, location or size of practice, and frequency of supervisory roles. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiology fellows and direct-entry anesthesiologists had largely similar demographics and perspectives on the challenges facing anesthesiology in the United States. Group differences found in some demographics and perspectives may reflect different motivations for choosing their professional paths and their diverse professional experiences.

A comparison of the American Board of Anesthesiology's in-person and virtual objective structured clinical examinations.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Anesthesiology's Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), as a component of its initial certification process, had been administered in-person in a dedicated assessment center since its launch in 2018 until March 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a virtual format of the exam was piloted in December 2020 and was administered in 2021. This study aimed to compare candidate performance, examiner grading severity, and scenario difficulty between these two formats of the OSCE. METHODS: The Many-Facet Rasch Model was utilized to estimate candidate performance, examiner grading severity, and scenario difficulty for the in-person and virtual OSCEs separately. The virtual OSCE was equated to the in-person OSCE by common examiners and common scenarios. Independent-samples t-test was used to compare candidate performance, and partially overlapping samples t-tests were applied to compare examiner grading severity and scenario difficulty between the in-person and virtual OSCEs. RESULTS: The in-person (n = 3235) and virtual (n = 2934) first-time candidates were comparable in age, sex, race/ethnicity, and whether U.S. medical school graduates. The virtual scenarios (n = 35, mean [0.21] ± SD [0.38] in logits) were more difficult than the in-person scenarios (n = 93, 0.00 ± 0.69, Welch's partially overlapping samples t-test, p = 0.01); there were no statistically significant differences in examiner severity (n = 390, -0.01 ± 0.82 vs. n = 304, -0.02 ± 0.93, Welch's partially overlapping samples t-test, p = 0.81) or candidate performance (2.19 ± 0.93 vs. 2.18 ± 0.92, Welch's independent samples t-test, p = 0.83) between the in-person and virtual OSCEs. CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective analyses of first-time OSCEs found comparable candidate performance and examiner grading severity between the in-person and virtual formats, despite the virtual scenarios being more difficult than the in-person scenarios. These results provided assurance that the virtual OSCE functioned reasonably well in a high-stakes setting.

Career decisions, training priorities, and perceived challenges for anesthesiology residents in the United States.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand the timing and important factors identified by residents regarding their decision to pursue a career in anesthesiology, training areas deemed important to their future success, perceived greatest challenges facing the profession of anesthesiology, and their post-residency plans. DESIGN: The American Board of Anesthesiology administered voluntary, anonymous, repeated cross-sectional surveys to residents who began clinical anesthesia training in the U.S. from 2013 to 2016 and were subsequently followed up yearly until the completion of their residency. The analyses included data from 12 surveys (4 cohorts from clinical anesthesia years 1 to 3), including multiple-choice questions, rankings, Likert scales, and free text responses. Free responses were analyzed using an iterative inductive coding process to determine the main themes. MAIN RESULTS: The overall response rate was 36% (6480 responses to 17,793 invitations). Forty-five percent of residents chose anesthesiology during the 3rd year of medical school. "Nature of the clinical practice of anesthesiology" was the most important factor influencing their decision (average ranking of 5.93 out of 8 factors, 1 [least important] to 8 [most important]), followed by "ability to use pharmacology to acutely manipulate physiology" (5.75) and "favorable lifestyle" (5.22). "Practice management" and "political advocacy for anesthesiologists" (average rating 4.46 and 4.42, respectively, on a scale of 1 [very unimportant] to 5 [very important]) were considered the most important non-traditional training areas, followed by "anesthesiologists as leaders of the perioperative surgical home" (4.32), "structure and financing of the healthcare system" (4.27), and "principles of quality improvement" (4.26). Three out of 5 residents desired to pursue a fellowship; pain medicine, pediatric anesthesiology, and cardiac anesthesiology were the most popular choices, each accounting for approximately 20% of prospective fellows. Perceived greatest challenges facing the profession of anesthesiology included workforce competition from non-physician anesthesia providers and lack of advocacy for anesthesiologist values (referenced by 96% of respondents), changes and uncertainty in healthcare systems (30%), and personal challenges such as psychological well-being (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Most residents identified anesthesiology as their career choice during medical school. Interest in non-traditional subjects and fellowship training was common. Competition from non-physician providers, healthcare system changes, and compromised psychological well-being were perceived concerns.

Sequential organ failure assessment score improves survival prediction for left ventricular assist device recipients in intensive care.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative risk scores facilitate patient selection, but postoperative risk scores may offer valuable information for predicting outcomes. We hypothesized that the postoperative Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score would predict mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from 294 continuous-flow LVAD implantations performed at Mayo Clinic Rochester during 2007 to 2015. We calculated the EuroSCORE, HeartMate-II Risk Score, and RV Failure Risk Score from preoperative data and the APACHE III and Post Cardiac Surgery (POCAS) risk scores from postoperative data. Daily, maximum, and mean SOFA scores were calculated for the first 5 postoperative days. The area under receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated to compare the scoring systems' ability to predict 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, mortality was 5% at 30 days, 10% at 90 days, and 19% at 1 year. The Day 1 SOFA score had better discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.77) than the preoperative risk scores or the APACHE III and POCAS postoperative scores. The maximum SOFA score had the best discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.86), and the mean SOFA score had the best discrimination for 90-day mortality (AUC 0.82) and 1-year mortality (AUC 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that postoperative mean and maximum SOFA scores in LVAD recipients predict short-term and intermediate-term mortality better than preoperative risk scores do. However, because preoperative and postoperative risk scores each contribute unique information, they are best used in concert to predict outcomes after LVAD implantation.

A Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Pivot: Development of the American Board of Anesthesiology's Virtual APPLIED Examination.

In 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic interrupted the administration of the APPLIED Examination, the final part of the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) staged examination system for initial certification. In response, the ABA developed, piloted, and implemented an Internet-based "virtual" form of the examination to allow administration of both components of the APPLIED Exam (Standardized Oral Examination and Objective Structured Clinical Examination) when it was impractical and unsafe for candidates and examiners to travel and have in-person interactions. This article describes the development of the ABA virtual APPLIED Examination, including its rationale, examination format, technology infrastructure, candidate communication, and examiner training. Although the logistics are formidable, we report a methodology for successfully introducing a large-scale, high-stakes, 2-element, remote examination that replicates previously validated assessments.

Anesthesiology Residents' Experiences and Perspectives of Residency Training.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiology residents' experiences and perspectives about their programs may be helpful in improving training. The goals of this repeated cross-sectional survey study are to determine: (1) the most important factors residents consider in choosing an anesthesiology residency, (2) the aspects of the clinical base year that best prepare residents for anesthesia clinical training, and what could be improved, (3) whether residents are satisfied with their anesthesiology residency and what their primary struggles are, and (4) whether residents believe their residency prepares them for proficiency in the 6 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Core Competencies and for independent practice. METHODS: Anesthesiologists beginning their US residency training from 2013 to 2016 were invited to participate in anonymous, confidential, and voluntary self-administered online surveys. Resident cohort was defined by clinical anesthesia year 1, such that 9 survey administrations were included in this study-3 surveys for the 2013 and 2014 cohorts (clinical anesthesia years 1-3), 2 surveys for the 2015 cohort (clinical anesthesia years 1-2), and 1 survey for the 2016 cohort (clinical anesthesia year 1). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 36% (4707 responses to 12,929 invitations). On a 5-point Likert scale with 1 as "very unimportant" and 5 as "very important," quality of clinical experience (4.7-4.8 among the cohorts) and departmental commitment to education (4.3-4.5) were rated as the most important factors in anesthesiologists' choice of residency. Approximately 70% of first- and second-year residents agreed that their clinical base year prepared them well for anesthesiology residency, particularly clinical training experiences in critical care rotations, anesthesiology rotations, and surgery rotations/perioperative procedure management. Overall, residents were satisfied with their choice of anesthesiology specialty (4.4-4.5 on a 5-point scale among cohort-training levels) and their residency programs (4.0-4.1). The residency training experiences mostly met their expectations (3.8-4.0). Senior residents who reported any struggles highlighted academic more than interpersonal or technical difficulties. Senior residents generally agreed that the residency adequately prepared them for independent practice (4.1-4.4). Of the 6 ACGME Core Competencies, residents had the highest confidence in professionalism (4.7-4.9) and interpersonal and communication skills (4.6-4.8). Areas in residency that could be improved include the provision of an appropriate balance between education and service and allowance for sufficient time off to search and interview for a postresidency position. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiology residents in the United States indicated they most value quality of clinical training experiences and are generally satisfied with their choice of specialty and residency program.

Demographic Trends From 2005 to 2015 Among Physicians With Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-Accredited Anesthesiology Training and Active Medical Licenses.

BACKGROUND: A temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates that occurred around the turn of the millennium may have workforce implications. The aims of this study are to describe, between 2005 and 2015, (1) demographic changes in the workforce of physicians trained as anesthesiologists; (2) national and state densities of these physicians, as well as temporal changes in the densities; and (3) retention of medical licenses by mid- and later-career anesthesiologists. METHODS: Using records from the American Board of Anesthesiology and state medical and osteopathic boards, the numbers of licensed physicians aged 30-59 years who had completed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited anesthesiology residency training were calculated cross-sectionally for 2005, 2010, and 2015. Demographic trends were then described. Census data were used to calculate national and state densities of licensed physicians. Individual longitudinal data were used to describe retention of medical licenses among older physicians. RESULTS: The number of licensed physicians trained as anesthesiologists aged 30-59 years increased from 32,644 in 2005 to 36,543 in 2010 and 36,624 in 2015, representing a national density of 1.10, 1.18, and 1.14 per 10,000 population in those years, respectively. The density of anesthesiologists among states ranged from 0.37 to 3.10 per 10,000 population. The age distribution differed across the years. For example, anesthesiologists aged 40-49 years predominated in 2005 (47%), but by 2015, only 31% of anesthesiologists were aged 40-49 years. The proportion of female anesthesiologists grew from 22% in 2005, to 24% in 2010, and to 28% in 2015, particularly among early-career anesthesiologists. For anesthesiologists with licenses in 2005, the number who still had active licenses in 2015 decreased by 9.6% for those aged 45-49 years, by 14.1% for those aged 50-54 years, and by 19.7% for those aged 55-59 years. CONCLUSIONS: The temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates around the turn of the 21st century decreased the proportion of anesthesiologists who were midcareer as of 2015. This may affect the future availability of senior leaders as well as the future overall workforce in the specialty as older anesthesiologists retire. National efforts to plan for workforce needs should recognize the geographical variability in the distribution of anesthesiologists.

First-Year Results of the American Board of Anesthesiology's Objective Structured Clinical Examination for Initial Certification.

In 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) into its initial certification examination system. Previously, the ABA's staged examination system consisted of 2 written examinations (the BASIC and ADVANCED examinations) and the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The OSCE and the existing SOE are now 2 separate components of the APPLIED Examination. This report presents the results of the first-year OSCE administration. A total of 1410 candidates took both the OSCE and the SOE in 2018. Candidate performance approximated a normal distribution for both the OSCE and the SOE, and was not associated with the timing of the examination, including day of the week, morning versus afternoon session, and order of the OSCE and the SOE. Practice-based Learning and Improvement was the most difficult station, while Application of Ultrasonography was the least difficult. The correlation coefficient between SOE and OSCE scores was 0.35 ([95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.30-0.39]; P < .001). Scores for the written ADVANCED Examination were modestly correlated with scores for the SOE (r = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.25-0.34]; P < .001) and the OSCE (r = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10-0.20]; P < .001). Most of the candidates who failed the SOE passed the OSCE, and most of the candidates who failed the OSCE passed the SOE. Of the 1410 candidates, 77 (5.5%) failed the OSCE, 155 (11.0%) failed the SOE, and 25 (1.8%) failed both. Thus, 207 (14.7%) failed at least 1 component of the APPLIED Examination. Adding an OSCE to a board certification examination system is feasible. Preliminary evidence indicates that the OSCE measures aspects of candidate abilities distinct from those measured by other examinations used for initial board certification.

Admission diagnosis and mortality risk prediction in a contemporary cardiac intensive care unit population.

BACKGROUND: Critical care risk scores can stratify mortality risk among cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients, yet risk score performance across common CICU admission diagnoses remains uncertain. METHODS: We evaluated performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-III, APACHE-IV, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score (OASIS) scores at the time of CICU admission in common CICU admission diagnoses. Using a database of 9,898 unique CICU patients admitted between 2007 and 2015, we compared the discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic) of each risk score in patients with selected admission diagnoses. RESULTS: Overall hospital mortality was 9.2%. The 3182 (32%) patients with a critical care diagnosis such as cardiac arrest, shock, respiratory failure, or sepsis accounted for >85% of all hospital deaths. Mortality discrimination by each risk score was comparable in each admission diagnosis (c-statistic 95% CI values were generally overlapping for all scores), although calibration was variable and best with APACHE-III. The c-statistic values for each score were 0.85-0.86 among patients with acute coronary syndromes, and 0.76-0.79 among patients with heart failure. Discrimination for each risk score was lower in patients with critical care diagnoses (c-statistic range 0.68-0.78) compared to non-critical cardiac diagnoses (c-statistic range 0.76-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The tested risk scores demonstrated inconsistent performance for mortality risk stratification across admission diagnoses in this CICU population, emphasizing the need to develop improved tools for mortality risk prediction among critically-ill CICU patients.

Early noncardiovascular organ failure and mortality in the cardiac intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Noncardiac organ failure has been associated with worse outcomes among a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that early organ failure based on the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score would be associated with mortality in CICU patients. METHODS: Adult CICU patients from 2007 to 2015 were reviewed. Organ failure was defined as any SOFA organ subscore ≥3 on the first CICU day. Organ failure was evaluated as a predictor of hospital mortality and postdischarge survival after adjustment for illness severity and comorbidities. RESULTS: We included 10 004 patients with a mean age of 67 ± 15 years (37% female). Admission diagnoses included acute coronary syndrome in 43%, heart failure in 46%, cardiac arrest in 12%, and cardiogenic shock in 11%. Organ failure was present in 31%, including multiorgan failure in 12%. Hospital mortality was higher in patients with organ failure (22% vs 3%, adjusted OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.5-3.7, P < .001). After adjustment, each failing organ system predicted twofold higher odds of hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-2.1, P < .001). Mortality risk was highest with cardiovascular, coagulation and liver failure. Among hospital survivors, organ failure was associated with higher adjusted postdischarge mortality risk (P < .001); multiorgan failure did not confer added long-term mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS: Early noncardiovascular organ failure, especially multiorgan failure, is associated with increased hospital mortality in CICU patients, and this risk continues after hospital discharge, emphasizing the need to promote early recognition of organ failure in CICU patients.

Temporal Trends and Clinical Outcomes Associated with Vasopressor and Inotrope Use in The Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: The use of norepinephrine may be associated with better outcomes in some patients with shock. We sought to determine whether norepinephrine was associated with lower mortality in unselected cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients compared with other vasopressors, and whether patterns of vasopressor and inotrope usage in the CICU have changed over time. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive adult patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital CICU from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2015. Vasoactive drug doses were quantified using the peak Vasoactive-Inotropic Score (VIS). Temporal trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage trends test and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of hospital mortality. RESULTS: We included 10,004 patients with a mean age of 67 ±â€Š15 years; vasoactive drugs were used in 2,468 (24.7%) patients. Use of norepinephrine increased over time, whereas dopamine utilization decreased (P < 0.001 for trends). After adjustment for illness severity and other variables, the peak VIS was a predictor of hospital mortality across the entire population (unit odds ratio [OR] 1.013, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.009-1.017, P < 0.001) and among patients receiving vasoactive drugs (OR 1.018, 95% CI, 1.013-1.022, P < 0.001). Among patients receiving vasoactive drugs, norepinephrine was associated with a lower risk of hospital mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI, 0.49-0.90, P = 0.008) after adjustment for illness severity and peak VIS. CONCLUSIONS: Vasoactive drug use in CICU patients has a dose-dependent association with short-term mortality. Use of norepinephrine in CICU patients is associated with decreased odds of death when compared with other vasoactive drugs.

Admission Braden Skin Score Independently Predicts Mortality in Cardiac Intensive Care Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a low Braden skin score (BSS), reflecting increased risk for skin pressure injury, would predict lower survival in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients after adjustment for illness severity and comorbidities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive unique adult patients admitted to a single tertiary care referral hospital CICU from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2015, who had a BSS documented on CICU admission. The primary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality, using elastic net penalized logistic regression to determine predictors of hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was all-cause post-discharge mortality, using Cox proportional hazards models to determine predictors of post-discharge mortality. RESULTS: The study included 9552 patients with a mean age of 67.4±15.2 years (3589 [37.6%] were females) and a hospital mortality rate of 8.3%. Admission BSS was inversely associated with hospital mortality (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.68-0.72; P<.001; area under the receiver operator curve, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.78-0.82), with increased short-term mortality as a function of decreasing admission BSS. After adjustment for illness severity and comorbidities using multivariable analysis, admission BSS remained inversely associated with hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P<.001). Among hospital survivors, admission BSS was inversely associated with post-discharge mortality after adjustment for illness severity and comorbidities (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0. 90; P<.001). CONCLUSION: The admission BSS, a simple inexpensive bedside nursing assessment potentially reflecting frailty and overall illness acuity, was independently associated with hospital and post-discharge mortality when added to established multiparametric illness severity scores among contemporary CICU patients.

Derivation and Validation of a Novel Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Admission Risk Score for Mortality.

Background There are no risk scores designed specifically for mortality risk prediction in unselected cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients. We sought to develop a novel CICU-specific risk score for prediction of hospital mortality using variables available at the time of CICU admission. Methods and Results A database of CICU patients admitted from January 1, 2007 to April 30, 2018 was divided into derivation and validation cohorts. The top 7 predictors of hospital mortality were identified using stepwise backward regression, then used to develop the Mayo CICU Admission Risk Score (M-CARS), with integer scores ranging from 0 to 10. Discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver-operator curve analysis. Calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. The derivation cohort included 10 004 patients and the validation cohort included 2634 patients (mean age 67.6 years, 37.7% females). Hospital mortality was 9.2%. Predictor variables included in the M-CARS were cardiac arrest, shock, respiratory failure, Braden skin score, blood urea nitrogen, anion gap and red blood cell distribution width at the time of CICU admission. The M-CARS showed a graded relationship with hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.84 for each 1-point increase in M-CARS, 95% CI 1.78-1.89). In the validation cohort, the M-CARS had an area under the receiver-operator curve of 0.86 for hospital mortality, with good calibration (P=0.21). The 47.1% of patients with M-CARS <2 had hospital mortality of 0.8%, and the 5.2% of patients with M-CARS >6 had hospital mortality of 51.6%. Conclusions Using 7 variables available at the time of CICU admission, the M-CARS can predict hospital mortality in unselected CICU patients with excellent discrimination.

Association Between Participation and Performance in MOCA Minute and Actions Against the Medical Licenses of Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: In January 2016, as part of the Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology (MOCA) program, the American Board of Anesthesiology launched MOCA Minute, a web-based longitudinal assessment, to supplant the former cognitive examination. We investigated the association between participation and performance in MOCA Minute and disciplinary actions against medical licenses of anesthesiologists. METHODS: All anesthesiologists with time-limited certificates (ie, certified in 2000 or after) who were required to register for MOCA Minute in 2016 were followed up through December 31, 2016. The incidence of postcertification prejudicial license actions was compared between those who did and did not register and compared between registrants who did and did not meet the MOCA Minute performance standard. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of license actions was 1.2% (245/20,006) in anesthesiologists required to register for MOCA Minute. Nonregistration was associated with a higher incidence of license actions (hazard ratio, 2.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.15-4.00]). For the 18,534 (92.6%) who registered, later registration (after June 30, 2016) was associated with a higher incidence of license actions. In 2016, 16,308 (88.0%) anesthesiologists met the MOCA Minute performance standard. Of those not meeting the standard (n = 2226), most (n = 2093, 94.0%) failed because they did not complete the required 120 questions. Not meeting the standard was associated with a higher incidence of license actions (hazard ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.36-2.72]). CONCLUSIONS: Both timely participation and meeting performance standard in MOCA Minute are associated with a lower likelihood of being disciplined by a state medical board.

The American Board of Anesthesiology's Standardized Oral Examination for Initial Board Certification.

The American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) has been administering an oral examination as part of its initial certification process since 1939. Among the 24 member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties, 13 other boards also require passing an oral examination for physicians to become certified in their specialties. However, the methods used to develop, administer, and score these examinations have not been published. The purpose of this report is to describe the history and evolution of the anesthesiology Standardized Oral Examination, its current examination development and administration, the psychometric model and scoring, physician examiner training and auditing, and validity evidence. The many-facet Rasch model is the analytic method used to convert examiner ratings into scaled scores for candidates and takes into account how difficult grader examiners are and the difficulty of the examination tasks. Validity evidence of the oral examination includes that it measures aspects of clinical performance not accounted for by written certifying examinations, and that passing the oral examination is associated with a decreased risk of subsequent license actions against the anesthesiologist. Explaining the details of the Standardized Oral Examination provides transparency about this component of initial certification in anesthesiology.