The Annual Institutional Review-Key Performance Measures and Processes.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires sponsoring institutions to demonstrate effective oversight through an annual institutional review (AIR). The ACGME only requires 3 elements to be reported, and it is up to the discretion of the designated institutional official (DIO) whether other supporting information should be included. This leads to uncertainty and inconsistency for DIOs as they decide what to report. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed DIOs in an effort to provide national data on key performance indicators and other relevant components of the AIR process. METHODS: In July 2019, we conducted a national survey of 847 DIOs. The survey had 16 questions that explored basic institutional demographics, timelines, and processes for the AIR and key performance indicators. Written answers were grouped by similar responses, and we performed descriptive statistics on all variables to assess distributions of responses. We also explored associations between variables using cross-tabulation and chi-square statistics. RESULTS: A total of 267 DIOs responded to the survey (32% response rate). There were 7 institutional performance measures that achieved over 50% consensus. These reviews required the majority of DIOs (62%, 167 of 267) 5 to 20 hours to complete. Less than one-third of sponsoring institutions reported diversity data. The majority of DIOs (68%, 182 of 267) felt the AIR process added substantial value. CONCLUSIONS: This survey reports key performance measures and processes included by DIOs in the AIR. Our results show a wide range of institutional responses though consensus was achieved on 7 key performance measures.

Jump starting a quality and performance improvement initiative to meet the updated ACGME guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residents to be trained in practice-based learning and improvement as well as systems-based practice. In an effort to establish a formal curriculum for graduate medical education, a Performance Improvement (PI) Training Program was initiated at Memorial University Medical Center. Training for the chief residents across all residency programs focused on the basic Six Sigma framework. Chief residents chose faculty sponsors and were also mentored by Six Sigma-trained staff. Faculty and physicians who participated in the initiative received PI/Continuing Medical Education credit. METHODS: A total of 17 presurveys and postsurveys were completed on 7 outcome measures. Nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank 2-tailed tests were performed to test for significant change from presurvey to postsurvey. RESULTS: Analysis of the 2-year data (2009-2011) found statistically significant improvement for all 7 outcome measures. The surgical residents' PI Project for 2011 included the development of the Venous Thromboembolism Reassessment Tool. The project included a multidisciplinary team to develop a computer prompt that continued to trigger if the physician launched the prophylaxis or treatment form without ordering anticoagulation. The new prompt resulted in a 391% increase in anticoagulant orders. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the resident-based PI Training Program was innovative, practical, and comprehensive. Education, tools, and skill development were provided on quality and PI theory and practice for resident physicians in support of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies of professionalism, practice-based learning and improvement, and systems-based practice.