A National Delphi Study to Inform Modernization of Anesthesiology Residency Case Log Requirements

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) case log system establishes minimum clinical experiences for anesthesiology residency. While core program requirements were last updated in 2016, case log minimums themselves have not undergone a major revision in approximately two decades. Consequently, current requirements may not fully reflect changes in anesthetic practice and the evolving scope of perioperative medicine. In anticipation of major ACGME revisions in 2027, this study aimed to develop consensus-driven recommendations for modernizing residency case logs. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted with a nationally representative panel of 60 stakeholders, including anesthesiology residency program directors and academic and private practice anesthesiologists. Panelists evaluated a comprehensive list of potential case categories across three domains: technical skills, surgical case characteristics, and patient demographics. In Round 1, panelists proposed minimum numbers or suggested that no requirement was necessary. Rounds 2 and 3 utilized iterative feedback to determine consensus on the necessity of requirements and specific minimum thresholds. Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds agreement. RESULTS: Sixty invited experts completed all three rounds (100% response rate). The panel reached consensus to recommend new minimum requirements across several areas not currently tracked with minimums, including arterial lines (40), central lines (20), fiberoptic intubation (10), one-lung ventilation (10), neuromonitoring (10), POCUS (10 Cardiac, 10 Lung), and NORA (20 cases). Regarding existing requirements, consensus was reached to recommend increasing total peripheral nerve blocks from 40 to 60, with added requirements for anatomic specificity, and cardiac case minimums from 20 to 25. The panel also established consensus definitions for life-threatening pathologies to standardize reporting. The panel did not achieve consensus on several areas, including, for example, whether a minimum requirement for patients younger than 3 months should be maintained. CONCLUSION: These findings provide stakeholder-validated recommendations to inform upcoming ACGME requirement revisions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.