Negative Effects Noted for 2011 ACGME RequirementsLast Updated: October 08, 2013. Pediatric program directors report negative effects of the 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Common Program Requirements, raising questions relating to patient safety and education quality, according to a study and editorial published online Oct. 7 in Pediatrics.
TUESDAY, Oct. 8 (HealthDay News) -- Pediatric program directors report negative effects of the 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Common Program Requirements, raising questions relating to patient safety and education quality, according to a study and editorial published online Oct. 7 in Pediatrics.
Brian C. Drolet, M.D., from Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues surveyed 151 pediatric program directors to examine approval and perception of changes to resident training and patient care resulting from 2011 ACGME Common Program Requirements. The researchers found that program directors reported approval for almost all ACGME duty hour regulations, with the exception of 16-hour intern shift limits (72.2 percent disapproval). With respect to the impact of new standards, many areas were unchanged, while negative effects were reported by most program directors on resident education, preparation for senior roles, resident ownership of patients, and continuity of care.
Kenneth B. Roberts, M.D., from Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C., discusses the negativity reported by program directors relating to the 2011 ACGME requirements. The researcher raised four questions, the first related to the correlation between patient safety and education, examining whether the shift in decision-making from interns to more senior residents was positive. The other issues related to the relationship between supervision and education, education and quality of life, and measurements of education quality.
"In this era of evidence-based medicine, the impact of changes on outcomes such as patient safety and quality of education need to be assessed rigorously: clearly the most important conclusion of the Drolet et al article," Roberts writes.