concordance among ccc members on emotional …...clinical competency committees (ccc) will assess...
TRANSCRIPT
M A T T H E W E B E R L Y , M D A P D , N A T I O N A L C A P I T A L C O N S O R T I U M
W A L T E R R E E D N A T I O N A L M I L I T A R Y M E D I C A L C E N T E R
U N I F O R M E D S E R V I C E S U N I V E R S I T Y
Concordance among CCC members on Emotional Intelligence Milestone
Placement of Pediatric Residents
Background
Clinical Competency Committees (CCC) will assess trainees using new ACGME Milestones and advise the PD regarding resident progress Promotion, Remediation, Dismissal
Concordance among CCC members for placement and progression of residents along the Milestones has not been previously established
We sought to determine the inter-rater reliability of trainee assessments by CCC members using a single Pediatric subcompetency
METHODS
The CCC of a single medium-sized pediatric program (10-13 residents/yr) assessed the ICS-2 subcompetency of 10 PGY2 residents who were 4 months into the academic year “Demonstrate the insight and understanding into
emotion and human response to emotion that allows one to appropriately develop and manage human interactions.”
Methods
22 members of our CCC (replaced Education Committee)
Department Chief Service Chiefs APDs Advisors Chief Resident
Training in Milestones Project One hour lecture in July following Morning Report Discussed at monthly Education Meetings (2) Mock Assessment of residents using PC-6 subcompetency
Methods
CCC members, now trained in Milestone assessment, were read 360-degree evaluations from the previous 3 months of rotations, and participated in the discussion of the resident’s progress
Each member then independently assessed the resident using the ICS-2 Milestones
The program director participated in the CCC deliberations, but did not assess trainees using the Milestones
Methods
22 faculty members of the CCC participated for a
total of 231 pairs of assessments.
Methods
(21) AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV (20) BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO, BP, BQ, BR, BS, BT, BU, BV (19) CD, CE, CF, CG, CH, CI, CJ, CK, CL, CM, CN, CO, CP, CQ, CR, CS, CT, CU, CV (18) DE, DF, DG, DH, DI, DJ, DK, DL, DM, DN, DO, DP, DQ, DR, DS, DT, DU, DV (17) EF, EG, EH, EI, EJ, EK, EL, EM, EN, EO, EP, EQ, ER, ES, ET, EU, EV (16) FG, FH, FI, FJ, FK, FL, FM, FN, FO, FP, FQ, FR, FS, FT, FU, FV (15) GH, GI, GJ, GK, GL, GM, GN, GO, GP, GQ, GR, GS, GT, GU, GV (14) HI, HJ, HK, HL, HM, HN, HO, HP, HQ, HR, HS, HT, HU, HV (13) IJ, IK, IL, IM, IN, IO, IP, IQ, IR, IS, IT, IU, IV (12) JK, JL, JM, JN, JO, JP, JQ, JR, JS, JT, JU, JV (11) KL, KM, KN, KO, KP, KQ, KR, KS, KT, KU, LV (10) LM, LN, LO, LP, LQ, LR, LS, LT, LU, LV (9) MN, MO, MP, MQ, MR, MS, MT, MU, MV (8) NO, NP, NQ, NR, NS, NT, NU, NV (7) OP, OQ, OR, OS, OT, OU, OV (6) PQ, PR, PS, PT, PU, PV (5) QR, QS, QT, QU, QV (4) RS, RT, RU, RV (3) ST, SU, SV (2) TU, TV (1) UV
22 FACULTY NAMES A V 231 total pairings
Methods
Weighted kappas of all faculty pairs were calculated kappa of 1 – perfect agreement between 2 raters kappa of 0 – agreement equivalent to chance Weighted kappa – assigns less weight to agreement as
categories are further apart < 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 >
Stratified analysis by pairs of hospitalists, pairs of
continuity clinic faculty, and pairs of GME leaders was performed
RESULTS
Weighted kappas ranged from 0.008 to 0.83 for the
231 pairings
Median of 0.37 [IQR 0.24 - 0.56]
Mean of 0.39 ± 0.20
Results
Excellent (k ≥ 0.81) agreement was seen in only 1.3% of observer pairs
Substantial agreement (0.61 ≤ k ≤ 0.80) was seen in 17.8% of observer pairs
The majority of pairs (54.6%) had poor agreement
Results
Excellent 1%
Substantial 18%
Fair 26%
Poor 55%
Breakdown of kappas for the 231 pairs
Results
35 hospitalist faculty pairs Mean kappa = 0.23 ± 0.15
105 continuity clinic faculty pairs Mean kappa = 0.46 ± 0.19
6 GME leader pairs Mean kappa = 0.57 ± 0.15
p < 0.001
p < 0.001
p = 0.17
Conclusions
ICS-2 Milestones assessment by members of key faculty using 360-degree observations and personal experience with trainees has poor inter-rater reliability
Faculty who interact with pediatric trainees in the primary care continuity clinic have better agreement on the ICS-2 Milestones assessment with each other than do hospitalists
Implications
How can the CCC decide on promotion or remediation of residents if members cannot agree on placement along the Milestones ?
The level of agreement on Milestones placement of residents may be improved by smaller-sized CCC’s and by limiting membership to those most familiar with the Milestones project
Determination of the ideal composition and size of the CCC needs to maximize inter-rater reliability while maintaining a wide-range of observer input
Changes in our Program
CCC now comprised of 10 members
Education Committee consisting of 22 members continues to have monthly meetings to discuss resident performance
Members of the Education Committee now report on the progression of each set of Milestones to the CCC
Acknowledgments
Greg Gorman, MD Theo Stokes, MD Jenn Hepps, MD Danika Alexander, MD Theresa Kiefer
Questions?