Putting Time in Perspective: An Integrated Graduate Medical Education Institutional Dashboard and Report Card

Andrada, Jillian; Teo, Joyce; Neo, Joel; Yeo, Helen; Leng, Lim Boon

doi:10.4300/jgme-d-18-00482

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Literature shows the increasing use of dashboards to meet accreditation needs and individual school's goals. 28,29 Educators can use LPD information (e.g., reports on students' clinical performance) to make major curriculum changes and guide personal learning. Access to such information is a valuable tool for continuous quality improvement.…”

Section: Current Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An LPD that provides instructors and educators such a resource has the potential to improve clinical learning. Literature shows the increasing use of dashboards to meet accreditation needs and individual school's goals 28,29 . Educators can use LPD information (e.g., reports on students’ clinical performance) to make major curriculum changes and guide personal learning.…”

Section: Current Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of an electronic learning progression dashboard to monitor student clinical experiences

Lai

Ameli

Patterson

et al. 2022

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Clinical experience tracking mechanisms for students at dental schools provide patient assignment, student experience, and learning progression feedback. The purpose of this study was to evaluate dental students’ clinical experiences following the implementation of a learning progression dashboard (LPD). Methods After developing and deploying an electronic LPD using PHP, secondary data analysis on dental students’ clinical experiences from 2017–2019 was conducted. Student experience differences were compared between the year before continuous use of the LPD and the first year using it. LPD data contained the required clinical procedures dentistry students must perform across all disciplines and the number of planned, in progress, and completed tasks each student has accomplished. Using two time points, the students’ experiences were compared. Univariate statistics and independent t‐tests were conducted in R for detecting the differences in the number and categories of codes. Results The number and category of codes showed significant differences between the academic year 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 for both third‐ and fourth‐year dental students after one and two terms. Overall, students recorded a 26% greater number of treatment codes and experienced a 26% greater number of code categories compared to the previous year. Conclusion Applying information management methods such as dashboards can better inform educators on student clinical experiences and improve clinical learning outcomes for students.

show abstract

Section: Current Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of an electronic learning progression dashboard to monitor student clinical experiences

Lai

Ameli

Patterson

et al. 2022

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When RPI started in 2012, the use of academic and clinical dashboards in family medicine residencies was far less common than it is today. 4,5,12,28 During the RPI period, collecting data was also more laborintensive and less automated than it is now. RPI-like efforts may be logistically easier in the future as dashboarding and data collection become more automated and sophisticated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Areas for further study could include a qualitative survey of program directors' perceptions of the impact of a future RPI-like tool on increasing their program's quality (that may not be captured quantitatively), and whether a future RPI-like tool is used for internal advocacy purposes within institutions to obtain additional resources needed to achieve a higher standard than accreditation only. 4,5,12,28 Additionally, the ACGME's New Accreditation System's requirements for programs to perform a 10-year self-study, using annual program evaluations and improvement plans will benefit from tools such as the RPI, tracking performance over time using internal and external benchmarked measures. 1,28 Ultimately, the value of the RPI experience may be in what was learned in trying to spur a specialty to improve residency training as a group enterprise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Six Years’ Experience Using Specialty National Residency Index: An Early Dashboard to Document Change Over Time

Hoekzema

Mills

Maxwell

et al. 2021

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: A decade ago, the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors developed the Residency Performance Index (RPI) as a novel dashboard of metrics to support residency programs’ quality improvement efforts. Although the RPI has since been discontinued, we sought to identify lessons learned from an analysis of 6 years of data collected while the RPI was in use to inform future quality and accreditation efforts implemented at the national level. Methods: The RPI collected data from 2012-2017 for nearly 250 distinct family medicine residency programs, identifying strengths and areas for improvement. Eighty-two programs provided data for 3 or more years of measures allowing analysis of improvement trends. Results: For participating programs, aggregate data over 6 years indicated the majority had stable leadership and accreditation. Total family medicine center (FMC) visits by graduates and resident visit demographics were robust. Graduate scope of practice was consistent with nationally publicized trends. Programs hit most aspirational targets more than 40% of the time. However, analysis for those programs with 3 or more years of data revealed that the tool did not result in significant changes for most metrics. Linear regression analysis showed improvements in total patient visits, visits under 10 years of age, and certain procedural competencies for those programs with 3 or more years of data. Conclusions: The RPI was the first and only nationally utilized family medicine graduate medical education quality improvement tool. Individual programs did not show substantial change in quantifiable metrics over time despite limited evidence of select programmatic improvements. Nationally, aggregated data provided insight into scope of practice and other areas of interest in residency training. Further efforts in provision of residency improvement tools are important to support programs given the increasing complexity and high stakes of family medicine residency education.

show abstract

“…Reports from others showed a reliance on specific report cards or dashboards to improve performance, but no formal assessment of the AIR has been undertaken. [4][5][6] This lack of data leaves DIOs uncertain about what to include in the AIR. Our objective was to survey a national sample of DIOs so that they understand what peer institutions are reporting in order to guide what information to include in their own AIR.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Annual Institutional Review—Key Performance Measures and Processes

Amos

Wiggins

Shaw

et al. 2020

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires sponsoring institutions to demonstrate effective oversight through an annual institutional review (AIR). The ACGME only requires 3 elements to be reported, and it is up to the discretion of the designated institutional official (DIO) whether other supporting information should be included. This leads to uncertainty and inconsistency for DIOs as they decide what to report. Objective We surveyed DIOs in an effort to provide national data on key performance indicators and other relevant components of the AIR process. Methods In July 2019, we conducted a national survey of 847 DIOs. The survey had 16 questions that explored basic institutional demographics, timelines, and processes for the AIR and key performance indicators. Written answers were grouped by similar responses, and we performed descriptive statistics on all variables to assess distributions of responses. We also explored associations between variables using cross-tabulation and chi-square statistics. Results A total of 267 DIOs responded to the survey (32% response rate). There were 7 institutional performance measures that achieved over 50% consensus. These reviews required the majority of DIOs (62%, 167 of 267) 5 to 20 hours to complete. Less than one-third of sponsoring institutions reported diversity data. The majority of DIOs (68%, 182 of 267) felt the AIR process added substantial value. Conclusions This survey reports key performance measures and processes included by DIOs in the AIR. Our results show a wide range of institutional responses though consensus was achieved on 7 key performance measures.

show abstract

Putting Time in Perspective: An Integrated Graduate Medical Education Institutional Dashboard and Report Card

Cited by 4 publications

References 5 publications

Development of an electronic learning progression dashboard to monitor student clinical experiences

Development of an electronic learning progression dashboard to monitor student clinical experiences

Six Years’ Experience Using Specialty National Residency Index: An Early Dashboard to Document Change Over Time

The Annual Institutional Review—Key Performance Measures and Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About