From the Editors
JGME Editorial Board member Anthony Artino Jr and colleagues offer helpful pointers on survey design and survey tool validation (pp. 407).
Perspectives
Neurological surgery residents offer their perspective on the effect of duty hour limits, discussing role models and experiences that shaped their professional identity and how these may be changing (Sedney, pp. 413; Fargen and Tomei, pp. 415).
Review
Zevin compares self-assessment versus others' assessment for surgical tasks, finding that self-assessment and ratings by others do not always agree (pp. 417). A second review aggregates program directors' perceived barriers to the implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies, finding that time and fiscal constraints pose considerable challenges (Malik et al, pp. 425).
Research and Innovation
Clyne and colleagues analyzed teaching evaluations for emergency medicine faculty, finding that more experienced faculty scored lowest; they propose areas for future research (pp. 434).
Increasing the focus of morbidity and mortality conferences on systems-based practice appears to enhance resident interest in improving systems in which they provide care (Gonzalo et al, pp. 438). A commentary by Pierluissi emphasizes that making morbidity and mortality conferences a “safe place” for discussing adverse events will improve quality and safety (pp. 543).
Li and colleagues explore the relationship between pediatrics residents' self-assessments and their individual learning plans, showing residents' improvement plans encompassed competencies in which they had rated themselves lower (pp. 445).
Two articles address duty hours. Drolet and colleagues analyzed residents' perceptions of the 2011 ACGME duty hour standards, finding concern about the impact of the standards, particularly the 16-hour limit for interns (pp. 454). Fargen reports on paging and workflow interruption for on-call junior neurological surgery residents (p 467). A commentary from Canada suggests duty hour standards should evolve along with new knowledge about their impact, with a need for an ongoing evaluation of their effectiveness (Maruscak et al, pp. 545).
Preisner and colleagues describe the effect of web-based review on long-term retention of aspiration and injection skills, reporting that the review reduced the decay of skills, yet this was limited to the areas of informed consent and postprocedure instruction (pp. 460).
Galvin and Buys explore resident interpretations of the term service, finding it used to describe negative experiences that interfere with educational goals and experiences at the core of the profession's higher calling (pp. 472). Kenneth Ludmerer's commentary discusses the larger systems context for the blurred distinction between education and service (pp. 547).
In 3 articles on simulation, Augustine and Kahana report on a procedural simulation workshop in pediatrics (pp. 479); Cooper et al compared emergency medicine residents and faculty in debriefing sessions for medical students, finding little difference and benefits in expanded simulation and resident learning opportunities (pp. 486); Miloslavksy and colleagues use simulation to teach interns clinical decision-making skills, and comment on acceptance by learners (pp. 490). In a commentary, Murray and Boulet discuss the many uses of simulation in graduate medical education (pp. 549).
Penrose and colleagues report the addition of a postdoctoral researcher was associated with improvements to resident and faculty research, and they recommend this approach for wider adoption (pp. 496).
Long and colleagues report on their experience with a citation tracking system, noting it improved the review and disposition of citations (pp. 500).
Njeim and colleagues describe a low-cost initiative to help residents identify “preventable” readmissions, which increased their perceptions of involvement in efforts to reduce readmissions (pp. 505).
Byrne et al report on an interprofessional quality curriculum that resulted in a gain in self-reported knowledge, ability, skills, and attitude, and an increase in residents' quality improvement knowledge (pp. 510).
Brief Reports
Summaries of new approaches include a faculty development program to teach lecturing skills intended to increase active learning (Desselle and colleagues, pp. 516); guidance for implementing a direct observation checklist in pediatric emergency medicine (FitzGerald et al, pp. 521); a resident as teacher program in anesthesiology (Berger et al, pp. 525); a study of time spent on the computer by internal medicine residents on inpatient rotations (Oxentenko and colleagues, pp. 529); and breakdowns in handovers from the emergency department as perceived by emergency medicine and internal medicine residents (Fischer et al, pp. 533).
Rip Out
One Rip Out discusses different forms of simulation and offers advice on how to begin and sustain simulation activities to benefit resident learning (Hamstra and Philibert, pp. 539); a second Rip Out offers program directors and faculty guidance on how to navigate the process of writing peer-reviewed publications (Malani and Lypson, pp. 541).
To the Editor
Schwartz offers an observation on the benefits of a primary care residency clinic in caring for a population of refugees (pp. 551), and Willet describes her observations on the paradoxical influence of resident continuity clinic on residents' interest in pursuing primary care careers (pp. 552). In addition, this section features the 3 top-scoring abstracts presented at the International Conference on Residency Education held October 2012 in Ottawa, Canada. They revisit the concept of fidelity in simulation (Hamstra et al, pp. 553); report on advice seeking by residents and the sources of this advice (McKinney and colleagues, pp. 554); and suggest standards for competency-based surgical training (Crebbin and Watters, pp. 555).
On Teaching
Best reflects on her yoga practice and draws parallels to surgical education (pp. 556).
ACGME News and Views
Members of the Council of Review Committee Residents recommend improvements in the use of scholarly activity data in accreditation based on their assessment of Residency Review Committee requirements and faculty promotions criteria (Grady et al, pp. 558).
The News and Views section features the time line for implementation of the Next Accreditation System (NAS) Phase II (pp. 562).