Price: £75.00 PRINCE2® ( Projects in a Controlled Environment) is part of the Global Best Practice suite of publications, which helps organizations and individuals manage their projects, programmes and services consistently and effectively. It is a structured project management method based on experience drawn from thousands of project practitioners sponsors, trainers, and academics worldwide. Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 provides clear step-by-step guidance on applying PRINCE2 to achieve effective project management and measurable business benefits. It will be particularly useful for new project managers wishing to learn about project management generally and about PRINCE2 in particular.

Experienced project professionals, and anyone considering introducing PRINCE2, will benefit from the detailed best-practice and governance guidance held within this invaluable resource. Key benefits.

In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced the six domains of clinical competency to the profession, and in 2009, it began a multiyear process of restructuring its accreditation system to be based on educational outcomes in these competencies. The result of this effort is the Next Accreditation System (NAS), scheduled for phased implementation beginning in July 2013. The aims of the NAS are threefold: to enhance the ability of the peer-review system to prepare physicians for practice in the 21st century, to accelerate the ACGME's movement toward accreditation on the basis of educational outcomes, and to reduce the burden associated with the current structure and process-based approach. Self-regulation is a fundamental professional responsibility, and the system for educating physicians answers to the public for the graduates it produces.

As the accreditor for graduate medical education (GME), the ACGME serves this public trust by setting and enforcing standards that govern the specialty education of the next generation of physicians. In this article, we discuss the NAS, including elements and attributes of interest to stakeholders (program directors, leaders of sponsoring institutions, ACGME's partner organizations, residents, and the public). The ACGME's public stakeholders have heightened expectations of physicians. No longer accepting them as independent actors, they expect physicians to function as leaders and participants in team-oriented care. Patients, payers, and the public demand information-technology literacy, sensitivity to cost-effectiveness, the ability to involve patients in their own care, and the use of health information technology to improve care for individuals and populations; they also expect that GME will help to develop practitioners who possess these skills along with the requisite clinical and professional attributes. Limitations of the Current System When the ACGME was established in 1981, the GME environment was facing two major stresses: variability in the quality of resident education and the emerging formalization of subspecialty education. In response, the ACGME's approach emphasized program structure, increased the amount and quality of formal teaching, fostered a balance between service and education, promoted resident evaluation and feedback, and required financial and benefit support for trainees.

These dimensions were incorporated into program requirements that became increasingly more specific during the next 30 years. The results have been largely salutary. Performance on certifying examinations has improved, residents are prepared to deal with the dramatically increasing volume and complexity of information in their specialty, and graduates and academic institutions have contributed to clinical advances and innovation that the public enjoys today. In addition, the role of the program director has been established as an educational career path, and the formal teaching and assessment of residents and fellows have improved substantially. Yet success has come at a cost. Program requirements have become prescriptive, and opportunities for innovation have progressively disappeared. As administrative burdens have grown, program directors have been forced to manage programs rather than mentor residents, with a recent study reporting administrative tasks related to compliance as a factor in burnout among directors of anesthesiology programs.

Feb 23, 2014. Source of the exam, Mainly PMBOK Guide, but not limited to it, The official manual, Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2. At least 4,500 hours experience in leading and directing projects (7,500 hours if you don't have a four-year degree), Formal training might be required.

Finally, educational standards often lag behind delivery-system changes. The introduction of innovation through accreditation is limited and is often viewed as an unfunded mandate. The Next Accreditation System In July 2013, the NAS will be implemented by 7 of the 26 ACGME-accredited core specialties (emergency medicine, internal medicine, neurologic surgery, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, diagnostic radiology, and urology). In the remaining specialties and the transitional year (a year of preparatory education for specialties such as ophthalmology and radiology that accept residents at the second postgraduate year), the NAS will be implemented in July 2014. Educational milestones (developmentally based, specialty-specific achievements that residents are expected to demonstrate at established intervals as they progress through training) have been completed or nearly completed for the seven specialties in the first phase of implementation. The residency review committees in these specialties will be in an excellent position to begin to collect milestone data during the 2012–2013 academic year to create a baseline data set for the NAS. The NAS moves the ACGME from an episodic “biopsy” model (in which compliance is assessed every 4 to 5 years for most programs) to annual data collection.

Each review committee will perform an annual evaluation of trends in key performance measurements and will extend the period between scheduled accreditation visits to 10 years. In addition to the milestones, other data elements for annual surveillance include the ACGME resident and faculty surveys and operative and case-log data.

The NAS will eliminate the program information form, which is currently prepared before a site visit to describe compliance with the requirements. Programs will conduct a self-study before the 10-year site visit, similar to what is done by other educational accreditors. It is envisioned that these self-studies will go beyond a static description of a program by offering opportunities for meaningful discussion of what is important to stakeholders and showcasing of achievements in key program elements and learning outcomes. Ongoing data collection and trend analysis will base accreditation in part on the educational outcomes of programs while enhancing ongoing oversight to ensure that programs meet standards for high-quality education and a safe and effective learning environment.

Programs that demonstrate high-quality outcomes will be freed to innovate by relaxing detailed process standards that specify elements of residents' formal learning experiences (e.g., hours of lectures and bedside teaching), leaving them free to innovate in these areas while continuing to offer guidance to new programs and those that do not achieve good educational outcomes. The Educational Milestones A key element of the NAS is the measurement and reporting of outcomes through the educational milestones, which is a natural progression of the work on the six competencies. Starting more than 10 years ago, the ACGME, in concert with the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), established the conceptual framework and language of the six domains of clinical competency and introduced them into the profession's lexicon, mirroring the move toward outcomes and learner-centered approaches in other domains of education. In each specialty, the milestones result from a close collaboration among the ABMS certifying boards, the review committees, medical-specialty organizations, program-director associations, and residents.

The earliest efforts involved internal medicine, pediatrics, and surgery, and by late 2011, milestones were being developed in all specialties. The aim is to create a logical trajectory of professional development in essential elements of competency and meet criteria for effective assessment, including feasibility, demonstration of beneficial effect on learning, and acceptability in the community.

Programs in the NAS will submit composite milestone data on their residents every 6 months, synchronized with residents' semiannual evaluations. Although the internal collection of milestone data may be more comprehensive, the data submitted to the ACGME will consist of 30 to 36 dimensions that represent the consensus of the assessment committee on the educational achievements of residents, informed by evaluations the program has performed. Table 1 Four Selected General Milestones in the Next Accreditation System. Shows a sample of generic milestones for professionalism, interpersonal and communication skills, practice-based learning and improvement, and systems-based practice. The milestones are based on the published literature on these competencies and were developed by an expert panel with representation from the specialties in the early phase for use in milestone development. At the completion of training, the final milestones will provide meaningful data on the performance that graduates must achieve before entering unsupervised practice. This process moves the competencies “out of the realm of the abstract and grounds them in a way that makes them meaningful to both learners and faculty.” The final milestones also create the entry point into the maintenance of certification and licensure phase of lifelong learning.

The initial milestones for entering residents will add a performance-based vocabulary to conversations with medical schools about graduates' preparedness for supervised practice. Over time, the milestones will reach into undergraduate medical education to follow the adoption of the competencies by many medical schools. This will contribute to a more seamless transition across the medical-education continuum. Another key element of the NAS is emphasis on the responsibility of the sponsoring institutions for the quality and safety of the environment for learning and patient care, a key dimension of the 2011 common program requirements. This will be accomplished through periodic site visits to assess the learning environment. Institutions will see their results, and the first visit will establish a baseline for self-comparison over time.

The process will generate national data on program and institutional attributes that have a salutary effect on quality and safety in settings where residents learn and on the quality of care rendered after graduation. Benefits and Limitations The visits to sponsoring institutions will ensure that residents are exposed to an appropriate learning environment, and the milestones will ensure that they demonstrate readiness for independent practice and possess the attributes that the public deems to be important in physicians. As future competencies emerge, the milestones will enhance the ability of the ACGME to ensure their successful incorporation into the physician's armamentarium. The NAS will enhance education focused on physician competencies that are deemed to be relevant to the health of individuals and populations. Through this, the NAS will benefit employers of new graduates and the public by enhancing the competence of future physicians in areas that are relevant to a well-performing, efficient, and cost-effective health care system and that have been recommended by experts and stakeholder groups. In the context of our aspirations for the NAS, it is important to note the limits of accreditation. Much has been written about the constrained environment for GME, including threatened reductions in support for physician training and increased productivity pressures on academic institutions and their faculties.

The development of the NAS is sensitive to these factors, since they are characteristics of the environment in which GME programs, sponsoring institutions, and the ACGME operate. At the same time, accreditation is not a panacea, and no accreditation model by itself can effectively compensate for the overuse of resources, inefficiencies, and disparities that characterize aspects of the nation's health care system. It would be presumptuous to expect accreditation to effectively resolve these problems. Rather, its roles are to arm the next generation of physicians with knowledge, skills, and attributes that will enhance care in the future and to expand the traditional role of residents in the care of underserved populations to an enhanced understanding of the problem of health disparities and how to eradicate them. Finally, although accreditation must be sensitive to the burden it creates on programs, institutions, and individuals, it would be dangerous to expect accreditation to reduce its expectations to accommodate the host of other pressures on the system of physician training.

Any move to create a reductionist model of accreditation to avoid burdening the system may further erode public support for physician education and public trust in the physicians the system produces. Constrained finances and future threats of reductions make it even more important for accreditation to ensure that learners are not unduly burdened with service obligations that do not meaningfully contribute to their education and that education and patient care proceed in an environment that complies with requirements for duty hours, supervision, and other elements important to the safety of patients and residents.

This makes the visits to sponsoring institutions a critical component of the NAS in the untoward event of serious cuts in support for GME. Conclusions Key benefits of the NAS include the creation of a national framework for assessment that includes comparison data, reduction in the burden associated with the current process-based accreditation system, the opportunity for residents to learn in innovative programs, and enhanced resident education in quality, patient safety, and the new competencies. Over time, we envision that the NAS will allow the ACGME to create an accreditation system that focuses less on the identification of problems and more on the success of programs and institutions in addressing them.

Although the ACGME has not piloted the NAS in its entirety, pivotal elements of the system have been tested successfully in the Educational Innovation Project in internal medicine and in a multiyear pilot in emergency medicine. Besides testing annual data collection, the Educational Innovation Project provided the ACGME with insight into standards that could be relaxed for high-performing programs (i.e., a 40% reduction in requirements for the internal medicine program, which went into effect in July 2009 ). Knowledge about acquisition of data elements around the milestones is being gained from the ACGME's international accreditation effort in Singapore and will benefit the implementation of the NAS. Finally, the learning gained from the first phase of the NAS will benefit the specialties that will implement the NAS in the second phase. Much work remains to be done. The next step in moving toward the NAS will involve informing the GME community about the NAS, with a particular focus on the milestones.

This work will continue in close collaboration with program-director organizations, the ABMS boards, the specialty colleges, and related academic organizations. The ACGME will continue its role in educating program directors, faculty, and others by building on its annual conference, with a focus on faculty development that is sensitive to time and financial constraints for many faculty members. The NAS will support the education of physicians to provide care for Americans into the middle of the century. This requires an enduring system that takes the best of the current system and enhances it with a more explicit focus on attributes of the learning environment that carry over into a lifetime of practice in a clinical specialty.

By encouraging high-performing programs to innovate, the system will open the quality ceiling and produce new learning. Simultaneously, an ongoing process-based approach for programs with less-than-optimal performance will continue to raise the floor for all programs. Provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. This article (10.1056/NEJMsr1200117) was published on February 22, 2012, at NEJM.org.

We thank the members of the ACGME expert milestone panel: Susan Swing, Ph.D., ACGME, Arden Dingle, M.D., Emory Medical School, Catherine A. Marco, M.D., University of Toledo College of Medicine, Karen Brasel, M.D., M.P.H., Medical College of Wisconsin, Rich Frankel, Ph.D., Indiana University, Joanne Schwartzberg, M.D., American Medical Association, Tina Foster, M.D., M.P.H., Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center, Gary Loyd, M.D., M.M.M., University of Louisville School of Medicine, Prathibha Varkey, M.B., B.S., M.H.P., M.H.E.P., Mayo Clinic; and Robin Hemphill, M.D., M.P.H., Douglas Paull, M.D., and Linda Williams, R.N., M.S.I., VA National Center for Patient Safety. References • 1 Swing SR, Clyman SG, Holmboe ES, Williams RG. Advancing resident assessment in graduate medical education. J Grad Med Educ 2009;1:278-286 • 2 McCullough LB. An ethical framework for the responsible leadership of accountable care organizations. Am J Med Qual 2011 November 23 (Epub ahead of print).

• 3 Ensuring an effective physician workforce for the United States: recommendations for reforming graduate medical education to meet the needs of the public: conference summary. New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, September 2011 ().

• 4 Team-based competencies: building a shared foundation for education and clinical practice: conference proceedings. New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, September 2011 (). • 5 Graduate medical education financing: focusing on educational priorities. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), June 2011 (). • 6 Council on Graduate Medical Education. Eighteenth Report: new paradigms for physician training for improving access to health care.

Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, September 2007. • 7 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. 111th Cong., 2nd sess. HR 4872, Sec. Improving accountability for approved medical residency training. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2010.

• 8 Federated Council for Internal Medicine. Enhancing standards for excellence in internal medicine training.

Ann Intern Med 1987;107:775-778 • 9 Zinner DE, Campbell EG. English Patch For The Witcher 2 Trainer. Life-science research within US academic medical centers.

JAMA 2009;302:969-976 • 10 Association of American Medical Colleges. Discoveries and innovations in patient care and research, 2000 through 2010 (). • 11 De Oliveira GS Jr, Almeida MD, Ahmad S, Fitzgerald PC, McCarthy RJ. Anesthesiology residency program director burnout. J Clin Anesth 2011;23:176-182 • 12 Allan J. Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies High Educ 1996;21:93-108 • 13 Green ML, Aagaard EM, Caverzagie KJ, et al.

Charting the road to competence: developmental milestones for internal medicine residency training. J Grad Med Educ 2009;1:5-20 • 14 Hicks PJ, Schumacher DJ, Benson BJ, et al. The pediatrics milestones: conceptual framework, guiding principles, and approach to development. J Grad Med Educ 2010;2:410-418 • 15 Bell RH. National curricula, certification and credentialing.

Surgeon 2011;9:Suppl 1:S10-S11 • 16 Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, et al. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the 2010 Ottawa Conference. Med Teach 2011;33:206-214 • 17 Kahn MW. Etiquette-based medicine. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1988-1989 • 18 Kumagai AK, Lypson ML.

Beyond cultural competence: critical consciousness, social justice, and multicultural education. Acad Med 2009;84:782-787 • 19 Plochg T, Klazinga NS, Starfield B. Transforming medical professionalism to fit changing health needs. BMC Med 2009;7:64-64 • 20 Moskowitz EJ, Nash DB. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies: practice-based learning and systems-based practice.

Am J Med Qual 2007;22:351-382 • 21 Varkey P, Karlapudi S. Lessons learned from a 5-year experience with a 4-week experiential quality improvement curriculum in a preventive medicine fellowship. J Grad Med Educ 2009;1:93-99 • 22 Ogrinc G, Headrick LA, Morrison LJ, Foster T.

Teaching and assessing resident competence in practice-based learning and improvement. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:496-500 • 23 Lypson ML, Frohna JG, Gruppen LD, Woolliscroft JO. Assessing residents' competencies at baseline: identifying the gaps. Acad Med 2004;79:564-570 • 24 Nasca TJ, Day SH, Amis ES Jr. The new recommendations on duty hours from the ACGME Task Force. N Engl J Med 2010.

DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb1005800. • 25 Asch DA, Nicholson S, Srinivas S, Herrin J, Epstein AJ. Evaluating obstetrical residency programs using patient outcomes. JAMA 2009;302:1277-1283 • 26 Betancourt JR. Eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in health care: what is the role of academic medicine?

Acad Med 2006;81:788-792 • 27 Weinstein DF. Duty hours for resident physicians: tough choices for teaching hospitals.

N Engl J Med 2002;347:1275-1278 • 28 AAMC policy guidance on graduate medical education: assuring quality patient care and quality education. Acad Med 2003;78:112-116 • 29 Impact statement for revisions to the program requirements for graduate medical education in internal medicine, effective July 1, 2009. Chicago: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, September 2008.

Citing Articles • 1 Barbara L. Joyce, Kathleen McHale.. Curriculum Design for Competency-Based Education in Orthopaedics. The Orthopedic Educator, 45-60. Cianciolo, Joseph Blessman..

“See One, Do One, Teach One?” A Story of How Surgeons Learn. Surgeons as Educators, 3-13. • 3 Sevann Helo, Charles Welliver.. The Role of Educators in Quality Improvement. Surgeons as Educators, 199-215. • 4 Sabha Ganai, Karen M.

Teaching Surgical Ethics. Surgeons as Educators, 377-385. Kulaylat, Danni Qin, Susie X.

Sun, Christopher S. Hollenbeak, Jane R. Schubart, Antone J. Aboud, Donald J.

Flemming, Peter W. Dillon, Edward R. Bollard, David C. (2017) Perceptions of mistreatment among trainees vary at different stages of clinical training. BMC Medical Education 17:1. • 6 Toru Yamada, Juichi Sato, Hiroshi Yoshimura, Tomoya Okubo, Eiji Hiraoka, Takashi Shiga, Tadao Kubota, Shigeki Fujitani, Junji Machi, Nobutaro Ban..

(2017) Reliability and acceptability of six station multiple mini-interviews: past-behavioural versus situational questions in postgraduate medical admission. BMC Medical Education 17:1. • 7 Adina Kalet, Sondra Zabar, Demian Szyld, Steven D Yavner, Hyuksoon Song, Michael W Nick, Grace Ng, Martin V Pusic, Christine Denicola, Cary Blum, Kinga L Eliasz, Joey Nicholson, Thomas S Riles.. (2017) A simulated “Night-onCall” to assess and address the readiness-for-internship of transitioning medical students. Advances in Simulation 2:1. • 8 Alexis R. Peedin, Yara A.

(2017) Apheresis education in pathology residency. Journal of Clinical Apheresis 32:6, 423-428. Sadhu, Paul C. Lee, Colin Stewart, Nicholas J. Carson, Craigan Usher, Eleni Maneta, Robert Kitts, Neha Sharma, Adrienne Adams, Eric P. Hazen, Myo Thwin Myint, Esther S. Vasa, Terri L.

Randall, Stephanie L. Leong, Sansea L.

(2017) Lessons from the Launch: Program Directors Reflect on Implementing the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Milestones. Academic Psychiatry 366. Mainous, Bo Fang, Lars E. (2017) Competency Assessment in Family Medicine Residency: Observations, Knowledge-Based Examinations, and Advancement.

Journal of Graduate Medical Education 9:6, 730-734. • 11 Ingrid Philibert, John H.

Beernink, Barbara H. Bush, Donna A.

Caniano, Andrea Chow, John J. Coyle, Joseph Gilhooly, Donald E. Kraybill, David Larson, Sarah Moran, Mary Catherine Nace, William W. Robertson, Judith D. Rubin, Theodore Sanford..

(2017) Improvement in Context: Exploring Aims, Improvement Priorities, and Environmental Considerations in a National Sample of Programs Using “Small Data”. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 9:6, 791-797. • 12 Michael S. Beeson, Stanley J. Hamstra, Melissa A.

Barton, Kenji Yamazaki, Francis L. Counselman, Philip H. Shayne, Eric S. Holmboe, Robert L. Muelleman, Earl J.

(2017) Straight Line Scoring by Clinical Competency Committees Using Emergency Medicine Milestones. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 9:6, 716-720. • 13 Shannon K. Martin, Kiara Tulla, David O. Meltzer, Vineet M. Arora, Jeanne M. (2017) Attending Physician Remote Access of the Electronic Health Record and Implications for Resident Supervision: A Mixed Methods Study.

Journal of Graduate Medical Education 9:6, 706-713. • 14 Danielle Hart, William Bond, Jeffrey N. Siegelman, Daniel Miller, Michael Cassara, Lisa Barker, Shilo Anders, James Ahn, Hubert Huang, Christopher Strother, Joshua Hui, Robert Cloutier.. (2017) Simulation for Assessment of Milestones in Emergency Medicine Residents.

Academic Emergency Medicine 366. • 15 Josef Bartels, Christopher John Mooney, Robert Thompson Stone.. (2017) Numerical versus narrative: A comparison between methods to measure medical student performance during clinical clerkships.

Medical Teacher 39:11, 1154-1158. • 16 Karen M. Chacko, Andrew J. Halvorsen, Sara L. Swenson, Sandhya Wahi-Gururaj, Alwin F. Steinmann, Stephanie Call, Jennifer S.

Myers, Arpana Vidyarthi, Vineet M. (2017) US Internal Medicine Program Director Perceptions of Alignment of Graduate Medical Education and Institutional Resources for Engaging Residents in Quality and Safety. American Journal of Medical Quality 59, 73911. • 17 Alla Smith, Jonathan Hatoun, James Moses..

(2017) Increasing Trainee Reporting of Adverse Events With Monthly Trainee-Directed Review of Adverse Events. Academic Pediatrics 17:8, 902-906. Shirley, Radu Gheorghe, Kevin M. Neal, Gary Kiebzak, Steven L. (2017) The Educational Opportunities Provided by a Pediatric Orthopedic Urgent Case Review Conference: Keep Score to Provide a Better Experience.

Journal of Surgical Education. • 19 Donald L. Gilbert, Julie A.

LaBare, Karen Keough, Terri B. (2017) Child Neurology Residency Program Directors and Program Coordinators 2016 Workforce Survey. Pediatric Neurology. • 20 Kenneth R. Gundle, Dayne T. Mickelson, Arien Cherones, Jason Black, Doug P.

(2017) Rapid Web-Based Platform for Assessment of Orthopedic Surgery Patient Care Milestones: A 2-Year Validation. Journal of Surgical Education 74:6, 1116-1123. • 21 Andem Ekpenyong, Elizabeth Baker, Ilene Harris, Ara Tekian, Richard Abrams, Shalini Reddy, Yoon Soo Park.. (2017) How do clinical competency committees use different sources of data to assess residents’ performance on the internal medicine milestones?A mixed methods pilot study. Medical Teacher 39:10, 1074-1083.

Chang, Sheree M. Schrager, Alyssa J. Rake, Michael W.

Chan, Phung K. Pham, Grant Christman.. (2017) The effect of multimedia replacing text in resident clinical decision-making assessment. Advances in Health Sciences Education 22:4, 901-914. (2017) Value-Based Medical Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Obstetrics & Gynecology 130:4, 684-685. • 24 Lindy H.

Hyperspin Project Torrent Sega. Landzaat, Michael D. Barnett, Gary T.

Buckholz, Jillian L. Gustin, Jennifer M. Hwang, Stacie K.

Levine, Tomasz R. Okon, Steven M. Radwany, Holly B. Yang, John Encandela, Laura J. (2017) Development of Entrustable Professional Activities for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship Training in the United States.

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 54:4, 609-616.e1. • 25 Ulfat Shaikh, Nasim Afsar-manesh, Alpesh N Amin, Brian Clay, Sumant R Ranji.. (2017) Using an online quiz-based reinforcement system to teach healthcare quality and patient safety and care transitions at the University of California. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 29:5, 735-739. • 26 Colleen Y. Colbert, Judith C.

French, Mary Elizabeth Herring, Elaine F. (2017) Fairness: the hidden challenge for competency-based postgraduate medical education programs.

Perspectives on Medical Education 6:5, 347-355. • 27 Victoria Hayes, Robert Bing-You, Kalli Varaklis, Robert Trowbridge, Heather Kemp, Dina McKelvy.. (2017) Is feedback to medical learners associated with characteristics of improved patient care? Perspectives on Medical Education 6:5, 319-324.

Mueller, Tania M. Jenkins, Melissa Osborne, Arjun Dayal, Daniel M. O'Connor, Vineet M.

(2017) Gender Differences in Attending Physicians' Feedback to Residents: A Qualitative Analysis. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 9:5, 577-585. • 29 Amanda K. Weidner, Frederick M. Chen, Lars E.

(2017) Developing the National Family Medicine Graduate Survey. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 9:5, 570-573. • 30 Nathan S. Brent Stansfield, Larry D. Gruppen, Lisa Colletti, Hilary Haftel, James O.

Woolliscroft, Monica L. (2017) Assessing Residents' Competency at Baseline: How Much Does the Medical School Matter? Journal of Graduate Medical Education 9:5, 616-621. Jane Easdown, Marsha L. Wakefield, Matthew S. Shotwell, Michael R. (2017) A Checklist to Help Faculty Assess ACGME Milestones in a Video-Recorded OSCE.

Journal of Graduate Medical Education 9:5, 605-610. • 32 Corey R. Heitz, Wendy Coates, Susan E.

Farrell, Jonathan Fisher, Amy Miller Juve, Lalena M. Yarris, Sebastian Uijdehaage.. (2017) Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Educational Research: The Best Publications of 2015. Academic Emergency Medicine 24:10, 1212-1225. • 33 Corey R. Heitz, Wendy Coates, Susan E. Farrell, Jonathan Fisher, Amy Miller Juve, Lalena M.

Yarris, Sebastian Uijdehaage.. (2017) Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Educational Research: The Best Publications of 2015. AEM Education and Training 1:4, 255-268.