special 225th anniversary edition
Graduate Medical Education S.W.O.T Recent Evolution of GME in Central Massachusetts Marilyn P. Leeds, M.P.H.
• QUALITY AND SAFETY AND THE TRAINING OF
RESIDENTS AND FELLOWS
Since the early 1990s, medical training institutions and GME programs have had to adjust to dramatic changes in health care and the academic environment by maximizing their Strengths (S), overcoming their Weaknesses (W), and responding to Opportunities (O) and Threats (T). Despite many changes, GME programs in Worcester have continued to thrive, increasing the number of training programs and specialties represented and total number of residents and fellows.
• CLOSURE AND RESTRUCTURING OF HEALTH CARE FACILITIES Concerns about financial viability under the pressures of new reimbursement systems and managed care led to the consolidation, closure or restructuring of the majority of health care facilities in Worcester over the past three decades, leaving UMass Memorial Medical Center and St. Vincent Hospital as the only acute care hospitals in Worcester training residents and fellows. St. Vincent Hospital has continued to sponsor its own programs while also serving as a training site for several of the Medical School programs.
• RESTRUCTURING OF THE SINGLE “UMASS MEDICAL CENTER” TO A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE STATEOWNED MEDICAL SCHOOL AND A PRIVATE NONPROFIT HOSPITAL Twenty-one years ago, UMass Medical Center formally dissolved to be replaced by two separate institutions, UMass Memorial Health Care and UMass Medical School, with a shared mission to train physicians for the Commonwealth, support research and discovery, and provide quality patient care. The University of Massachusetts Medical School has remained the sponsor of all UMass Memorial GME programs, with clinical training at UMass Memorial Medical Center (which includes the former Memorial and Hahnemann hospital campuses, in addition to the University Campus hospital) and other affiliated teaching hospitals. Medical School sponsorship of GME has ensured that the focus of resident and fellow training remains education and not strictly clinical services.
20 | Worcester Medicine July/August 2019
Public concerns about quality and safety began to arise nationally with the 1984 Libby Zion case and the resulting Bell Commission’s regulations on resident work hours in New York. Although the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) did not move to regulate resident work hours until 2003, Massachusetts teaching hospitals established “provisional guidelines” in 1990 to limit resident work hours consistent with many of the Bell Commission recommendations. Other studies and reports including the 1999 Institution of Medicine report, “To Err is Human,” led to ACGME “Institutional” and “Common Program Requirements” that stress the importance of resident supervision in the provision of patient care.
• NEW FOCUS ON COMPETENCIES AND OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT In 2002, the ACGME launched the Outcome Project to identify essential core competencies for physician training. Each specialty was subsequently charged with the establishing milestones and expectations for achievement at each level and successful completion of training. This led to comprehensive change in the use of computer-based performance evaluation and the establishment of Program Evaluation Committees and Clinical Competency Committees. Evaluation of residents, faculty, programs and institutions became more fully integrated.
• NEXT ACCREDITATION SYSTEM (NAS) – ANNUAL REVIEWS AND SELF STUDY The GME accreditation process now requires programs to address their own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to improve training. Rather than limiting programs to comply with a rigid training protocol, NAS encourages programs to develop creative solutions to their unique challenges and establish “best practices” for training physicians that can be shared with other programs
The review process includes both annual evaluation of resident performance and self-assessment of program goal achievement. The previous ACGME review process was frequently viewed by programs as punitive with the risk of citations and possible probation for failure to meet specific ACGME requirements.
