RESIDENCY EDUCATION—COMPETENCY AND INNOVATION

Gregory Blake; Ann Skelton; Jeffrey Borkan; Steve Spann; Tyson Ideka; Mack Worthington; Alan David

doi:10.1370/afm.893

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article

Compose eLetter

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

Innovation and the ACGME
Richard A. Neill

Published on: 19 September 2008

Published on: (19 September 2008)
Page navigation anchor for Innovation and the ACGME
Innovation and the ACGME
Richard A. Neill, Philadelphia, USA
The authors are to be commended for their push for more flexibility from the ACGME with regards to innovation and experimentation. Although I speak for myself and not for the FM-RC in my role as a current member I can assure you that I share the sentiments expressed in your editorial and hope to see more proposals for innovation in residency education from accredited programs.
Contrary to the authors assertio...
Show More

The authors are to be commended for their push for more flexibility from the ACGME with regards to innovation and experimentation. Although I speak for myself and not for the FM-RC in my role as a current member I can assure you that I share the sentiments expressed in your editorial and hope to see more proposals for innovation in residency education from accredited programs.
Contrary to the authors assertion that "... innovation can only be implemented if all existing requirements are met", I feel duty bound to point out that the ACGME has a mechanism in place to waive requirements, with instructions listed on the ACGME FM-RC website (http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/navpages/nav_program_experimentation. asp) and elsewhere (page 103 of the ACGME policies and procedures http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/about/ab_ACGMEPoliciesProcedures.pdf)
This mechanism allows exactly what the authors call for; namely a waiver of common, program or institutional requirements in the implementation of experimental educational settings. Among other things it requires a clear rationale for the variation or exception to requirements, along with a monitoring process that informs the outcome of the experiment.
In addition, programs may choose to innovate without requesting a waiver of requirements if they are willing to take a few citations but remain in substantial compliance with the minimum requirements. Indeed, many residencies without experimental programs maintain their accreditation despite persistent, if minor, deficiencies that accrue from design rather than default.
Competing interests: None declared
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.