PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: As of 2014, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandates initiating a Program Evaluation Committee (PEC) to guide ongoing program improvement. However, little guidance nor published reports exist about how individual PECs have undertaken this mandate.
OBJECTIVE: To explore how four primary care residency PECs configure their committees, review program goals and undertake program evaluation and improvement.
METHODS: We conducted a multiple case study between December 2022 and April 2023 of four purposively selected primary care residencies (e.g., family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine). Data sources included semi-structured interviews with four PEC members per program and diverse program artifacts. Using a constructivist approach, we utilized qualitative coding to analyze participant interviews and content analysis for program artifacts. We then used coded transcripts and artifacts to construct logic models for each program guided by a systems theory lens. Results: Programs adapt their PEC structure, execution, and outcomes to meet short- and long-term needs based on organizational and program-unique factors such as size and local practices. They relied on multiple data sources and sought diverse stakeholder participation to complete program evaluation and improvement. Identified deficiencies were often categorized as internal versus external to delineate PEC responsibility, boundaries, and feasibility of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The broad guidance provided by the ACGME for PEC configuration allows programs to adapt the committee based on individual needs. However, further instruction on program evaluation and organizational change principles would augment existing PEC efforts.
OBJECTIVE: To explore how four primary care residency PECs configure their committees, review program goals and undertake program evaluation and improvement.
METHODS: We conducted a multiple case study between December 2022 and April 2023 of four purposively selected primary care residencies (e.g., family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine). Data sources included semi-structured interviews with four PEC members per program and diverse program artifacts. Using a constructivist approach, we utilized qualitative coding to analyze participant interviews and content analysis for program artifacts. We then used coded transcripts and artifacts to construct logic models for each program guided by a systems theory lens. Results: Programs adapt their PEC structure, execution, and outcomes to meet short- and long-term needs based on organizational and program-unique factors such as size and local practices. They relied on multiple data sources and sought diverse stakeholder participation to complete program evaluation and improvement. Identified deficiencies were often categorized as internal versus external to delineate PEC responsibility, boundaries, and feasibility of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The broad guidance provided by the ACGME for PEC configuration allows programs to adapt the committee based on individual needs. However, further instruction on program evaluation and organizational change principles would augment existing PEC efforts.
摘要：
背景：自2014年起，研究生医学教育认证委员会（ACGME）授权启动计划评估委员会（PEC）以指导正在进行的计划改进。然而,关于个别PEC如何承担这一任务的指导和发表的报告很少。
目的：探索四个初级保健住院医师PEC如何配置其委员会，审查计划目标并进行计划评估和改进。
方法：我们在2022年12月至2023年4月之间进行了一项多案例研究，其中包括四个有目的地选择的初级保健住院医师（例如，家庭医学,儿科,内科）。数据源包括对每个计划的四名PEC成员的半结构化访谈和各种计划工件。使用建构主义的方法，我们利用定性编码来分析参与者访谈和节目工件的内容分析。然后，我们使用编码的转录本和工件为系统理论透镜指导下的每个程序构建逻辑模型。结果：程序适应其PEC结构，执行，和结果，以满足短期和长期需求，基于组织和方案独特的因素，如规模和当地做法。他们依靠多个数据源，并寻求不同的利益相关者参与来完成计划评估和改进。确定的缺陷通常被归类为内部与外部，以描述PEC的责任，边界,干预措施的可行性。
结论：ACGME为PEC配置提供的广泛指导允许计划根据个人需求调整委员会。然而,关于计划评估和组织变革原则的进一步指导将增强现有的PEC努力。
目的：探索四个初级保健住院医师PEC如何配置其委员会，审查计划目标并进行计划评估和改进。
方法：我们在2022年12月至2023年4月之间进行了一项多案例研究，其中包括四个有目的地选择的初级保健住院医师（例如，家庭医学,儿科,内科）。数据源包括对每个计划的四名PEC成员的半结构化访谈和各种计划工件。使用建构主义的方法，我们利用定性编码来分析参与者访谈和节目工件的内容分析。然后，我们使用编码的转录本和工件为系统理论透镜指导下的每个程序构建逻辑模型。结果：程序适应其PEC结构，执行，和结果，以满足短期和长期需求，基于组织和方案独特的因素，如规模和当地做法。他们依靠多个数据源，并寻求不同的利益相关者参与来完成计划评估和改进。确定的缺陷通常被归类为内部与外部，以描述PEC的责任，边界,干预措施的可行性。
结论：ACGME为PEC配置提供的广泛指导允许计划根据个人需求调整委员会。然而,关于计划评估和组织变革原则的进一步指导将增强现有的PEC努力。
