Why the study?
Interventional cardiology programs previously used general internal medicine milestones rather than competencies specific to training in interventional cardiology.
The ACGME Interventional Cardiology Milestones 2.0 establishes a specific framework for evaluating and providing formative feedback to interventional cardiology trainees.
Supports standardized formative assessment of interventional cardiology trainees; extends ACGME milestones framework to this subspecialty.
This document provides an overview of the rationale, development, interpretation, and practical suggestions for implementation of the new Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Interventional Cardiology (IC) Milestones 2.0. Previously, IC programs used the general ACGME Milestones for internal medicine. The IC Milestones version 2.0 updates the ACGME competencies to be specific to training in IC. In 2019 an ACGME working group consisting of IC program directors, a lay representative, and representatives from the American Board of Internal Medicine met to develop the IC Milestones version 2.0. The ACGME IC Milestones 2.0 establishes a framework for formative feedback for trainees within domains of patient care, medical knowledge, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, professionalism, and interpersonal and communication skills. The 2021 IC Milestones 2.0 provides a framework for IC mentors and trainees to identify areas for improvement or commendation help stimulate meaningful educational discussions, and provide the basis for self-reflection and self-improvement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ijioma et al. (2021) conducted a review in Interventional Cardiology Training. ACGME Interventional Cardiology Milestones 2.0 was evaluated. The 2021 ACGME Interventional Cardiology Milestones 2.0 establishes a framework for formative feedback, identifying areas for improvement, and stimulating educational discussions for trainees.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: