Accreditation of Simulation Fellowships and Training Programs: More Checkboxes or Elevating the Field?

SUMMARY STATEMENT: As the field of healthcare simulation matures, formal accreditation for simulation fellowships and training programs has become increasingly available and touted as a solution to standardize the education of those specializing in healthcare simulation. Some simulation experts hold opposing views regarding the potential value of simulation fellowship program accreditation. We report on the proceedings of a spirited debate at the 20th International Meeting on Simulation in Healthcare in January 2020. Pro arguments view accreditation as the logical evolution of a maturing profession: improving training quality through standard setting, providing external validation for individual programs, and enhancing the program's return on investment. Con arguments view accreditation as an incompletely formulated construct; burdensome to the "financially strapped" fellowship director, misaligned with simulation fellows' needs and expectations, and confusing to administrators mistakenly equating accreditation with credentialing. In addition, opponents of accreditation postulate that incorporating curricular standards, practice guidelines, and strategies derived and implemented without rigor, supporting evidence and universal consensus is premature. This narrative review of our debate compares and contrasts contemporary perspectives on simulation fellowship program accreditation, concluding with formal recommendations for learners, administrators, sponsors, and accrediting bodies.

The ADMSEP Milestones Project.

OBJECTIVE: Credentialing bodies mandate that a medical school's curriculum be based upon recognized guidelines. Within the field of psychiatry, the Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry (ADMSEP) has previously published recommended guidelines for the pre-clinical and clerkship curriculum. Ongoing changes within the Liaison Committee on Medical Education's requirements for medical school curricula, and the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition, necessitated review of these guidelines. METHODS: ADMSEP convened a task force of psychiatric educators to develop a consensus report outlining new guidelines. The ADMSEP membership reviewed and approved this final document. RESULTS: The guidelines outline six core learning objectives with corresponding competencies. Each of these competencies specifies accompanying milestones to be achieved through the course of medical school. CONCLUSIONS: ADMSEP believes these guidelines will aid educators in crafting a school's psychiatric curriculum. Clearly articulated milestones may foster the further development of validated educational and assessment tools by ADMSEP and other organizations.

An interdisciplinary infection control education intervention: necessary but not sufficient.

BACKGROUND: Patient care environments are struggling to eradicate health care associated infections and studies of undergraduate and graduate medical trainees have revealed significant gaps in their performance of proper hand hygiene and aseptic technique (HH/AT), suggesting the need for improved curriculum. High-reliability industries have provided a model using standardization of approach and interprofessional training, and both are particularly suited to the teaching and assessment of these life-saving skills. The Infection Control Education project is a grant-funded, multi-institutional pilot launched to improve the teaching and assessment of HH/AT in our community. METHODS: An interprofessional team of leaders and educators from 2 local hospital systems and 3 health colleges developed a 9-component "ICE PACK," which includes a unanimously endorsed, detailed HH/AT checklist. This teaching and assessment module was delivered to nursing/medical student and postgraduate year 1 resident/nurse intern pairs. Retention of checklist skills was retested 2 to 5 months after participation in the module. RESULTS: Learner pairs participating in the 2-hour module mastered the HH/AT checklist and rated the experience highly. Retention after several weeks was disappointingly low in 2 of the 3 participant groups. CONCLUSIONS: A community-wide HH/AT checklist was developed and an ICE PACK of materials created that is portable, standardizes the teaching and assessment of HH/AT skills, and is designed for interprofessional pairs of learners. Retention of checklist steps was disappointing in most of participant groups. Multiple, simultaneous strategies for improving compliance with infection control mandates appear necessary.

Primary care evaluation of mental disorders (PRIME-MD) screening for minor depressive disorder in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals visiting a primary care practice were screened to determine the prevalence of depressive disorders. The DSM-IV-TR research criteria for minor depressive disorder were used to standardize a definition for subthreshold symptoms. METHOD: Outpatients waiting to see their physicians at 3 community family medicine sites were invited to complete a demographic survey and the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Patient Questionnaire (PRIME-MD PQ). Those who screened positive for depression on the PRIME-MD PQ were administered both the PRIME-MD Clinician Evaluation Guide (CEG) mood module and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) by telephone. Data were collected over a 2-year period (1996-1998). RESULTS: 1,752 individuals completed the PRIME-MD PQ with 478 (27.3%) scoring positive for depression. Of these 478 patients, 321 received telephone follow-up using the PRIME-MD CEG mood module and the HDRS. PRIME-MD diagnoses were major depressive disorder (n = 85, 26.5%), dysthymia (n = 31, 9.6%), minor depressive disorder (n = 51, 15.9%), and no depression diagnosis (n = 154, 48.0%). The mean HDRS scores by diagnosis were major depressive disorder (20.3), dysthymia (12.9), minor depressive disorder (11.7), and no depression diagnosis (5.8). Post hoc analyses using Dunnett's C test indicated differences between each of the 4 groups at P ≤ .05, with the exception that dysthymia and minor depressive disorder were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Minor depressive disorder was more prevalent than dysthymia and had similar symptom severity to dysthymia as measured by the HDRS. More research using standardized definitions and longitudinal studies is needed to clarify the natural course and treatment indications for minor depressive disorder.

The Professor of Public Psychiatry Model in Ohio: the impact on training, program innovation, and the quality of mental health care.

The Ohio Department of Mental Health and five of Ohio's University-based Departments of Psychiatry have developed strong working partnerships that have improved the quality of psychiatric residency education and Ohio's mental health services. Strategies integral to Ohio's Public Psychiatry Model include identifying a strong champion, integrating expert consultation, and developing consensus expectations using a small amount of catalytic funding. Successful outcomes include the establishment of public psychiatry leadership roles in Ohio's community and academic settings; positive community-focused residency training experiences; revised curricula; and spin-off opportunities, such as "Coordinating Centers of Excellence" to accelerate adoption of evidence-based practices in community settings.

Telephone-based treatment for family practice patients with mild depression.

The need for treating milder forms of depression has recently been of increased interest. This was a randomized, controlled study to evaluate the effects of telephone-based problem-solving therapy for mild depression. Comparison groups were a treatment-as-usual group and another group receiving stress-management training by telephone. From 1,742 family practice patients screened for depression, 54 with mild depression entered the study. Treatment was provided by experienced family practice nurses, trained and supervised in the treatments. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was administered before and after the intervention period, and the Beck Depression Inventory and Duke Health Profile were administered at the end of the intervention period. Of the 36 subjects assigned to the problem-solving and stress-management groups, half dropped out early in the study. Five from the treatment-as-usual group were lost to follow-up. In the remaining subjects, there was a significant decrease in depression scores. There were no significant differences in the amount of decrease between the groups on any scores. The small sample and high dropout rate limit the interpretation of the findings. However, since all subjects tended to improve, regardless of treatment received, mild levels of depression may generally remit even without focal intervention, and watchful waiting may be a reasonable alternative for management.