0
Editorial   |    
Should Time Spent in Residency Define the End of Training?
J. Lawrence Marsh, MD1
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
View Disclosures and Other Information
  • Disclosure statement for author(s): PDF


Disclosure: The author did not receive payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his institution), from a third party in support of any aspect of this work. He, or his institution, has had a financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work, with an entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The author has not had any other relationships, or engaged in any other activities, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The complete Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest submitted by authors are always provided with the online version of the article.

Copyright © 2013 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2013 Nov 06;95(21):1905-1905. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01102
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
For nearly a century, surgery has been taught with the use of an apprenticeship model. Residents work with faculty members on clinical rotations gaining experience while providing service to patients. The rotations have educational goals and objectives, but resident education primarily depends on the patients who present to the clinical service. The Residency Review Committee (RRC) in Orthopaedic Surgery and the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) both specify a five-year residency program, identifying this training time as the end point to residency. The program director must provide a “ready to practice independently” attestation. Few residents fail to complete the program or remain in the program for additional training.
As a consequence of time-based training, residents completing the program vary in competence, with no mechanism to solve this unfortunate situation. As an example, surgical skills are acquired in the operating room over five years. The more skilled resident participates in more cases and is allowed more independence sooner than the less skilled resident who participates less and progresses more slowly. Although appropriate for patient safety and quality of care, this differential experience effectively widens the surgical skill gap between more and less skilled trainees.
With time determining completion of training, other educational landmarks are of secondary importance. A true curriculum is not necessary. Why work to define a body of knowledge or required set of skills if competence is defined as time in training? After five years, the training is done regardless of resident skills or knowledge. The assessments necessary to determine competence are less important than the time in training, and assessment on busy clinical services often plays a limited role.
The article by Ferguson et al.1 forces us to ask: is time the optimal determinant of the end of resident training and clinical practice independence? The authors present their experience with a modular curriculum that changes the paradigm from time-limited education to competency-based assessment of resident progress with competency-based end points. This experience is thought-provoking and fundamentally more logical than our current time-based system.
Competency-based training has important core features. First, a curriculum for orthopaedic surgery must specify the required skills and competencies. Second, robust and validated assessments must replace time in determining the end of training. Third, accelerated skills training must include surgical simulation in which residents acquire skills safely through dedicated practice and feedback, train to proficiency, and learn from errors. These core features of competency-based training are laudable and could be easily achieved in our current system.
Unfortunately, despite the appeal, there are obstacles to wide adoption of fully competency-based training. The RRC and the ABOS would have to eliminate mandatory time requirements and would have to replace them with validated assessments of competency. Graduate Medical Education (GME) funding in a competency-based training system, in which residents flow in and out of training positions that are not limited by time, would have difficult logistical hurdles and would be more expensive. Residents provide essential clinical service, making it difficult to direct them to competency-based educational needs and even more difficult to replace experienced residents who have achieved required competencies. Substantial additional resources would be required at a time when GME is already financially stressed.
Our current GME system is moving toward better defined and nationally accepted competency metrics. Procedural case logs and case-minimum categories are now mandated. Orthopaedic surgery milestones in all six competencies are in the first year of implementation. The ACGME-ABMS (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-American Board of Medical Specialties) is converting to the Next Accreditation System (NAS), which will be more data-driven and will better assess resident progress and program outcomes. Laboratory-based surgical skills training is now mandated for orthopaedic surgery and there is a modular curriculum at the postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) level.
Although these are important steps toward competency-based resident education, our current system is not yet ready to move away from time as the prime metric of completion of training. The experience described by Ferguson et al. remains aspirational, but it should inspire us to have an open mind to taking further steps in this direction.

Reference

Ferguson  PC;  Kraemer  W;  Nousiainen  M;  Safir  O;  Sonnadara  R;  Alman  B;  Reznick  R. Three-year experience with an innovative, modular competency-based curriculum for orthopaedic training. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2013;95:e166.
 

Submit a comment

References

Reference

Ferguson  PC;  Kraemer  W;  Nousiainen  M;  Safir  O;  Sonnadara  R;  Alman  B;  Reznick  R. Three-year experience with an innovative, modular competency-based curriculum for orthopaedic training. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2013;95:e166.
 
Accreditation Statement
These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
CME Activities Associated with This Article
Submit a Comment
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe





Related Content
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
JBJS Case Connector
Topic Collections
Related Audio and Videos
PubMed Articles
Clinical Trials
Readers of This Also Read...
JBJS Jobs
03/17/2014
Connecticut - Orthopaedic Foundation
04/02/2014
IL - Hinsdale Orthopaedics
04/16/2014
GA - Choice Care Occupational Medicine & Orthopaedics