BackgroundThe implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones in the field of obstetrics and gynecology has arrived with Milestones Level One defined as the level expected of an incoming first-year resident.PurposeWe designed, implemented, and evaluated a 4-week elective for fourth-year medical school students, which utilized a multimodal approach to teaching and assessing the Milestones Level One competencies.MethodsThe 78-hour curriculum utilized traditional didactic lectures, flipped classroom active learning sessions, a simulated paging curriculum, simulation training, embalmed cadaver anatomical dissections, and fresh-frozen cadaver operative procedures. We performed an assessment of student knowledge and surgical skills before and after completion of the course. Students also received feedback on their assessment and management of eight simulated paging scenarios. Students completed course content satisfaction surveys at the completion of each of the 4 weeks.ResultsStudents demonstrated improvement in knowledge and surgical skills at the completion of the course. Paging confidence trended toward improvement at the completion of the course. Student satisfaction was high for all of the course content, and the active learning components of the curriculum (flipped classroom, simulation, and anatomy sessions) had higher scores than the traditional didactics in all six categories of our student satisfaction survey.ConclusionsThis pilot study demonstrates a practical approach for preparing fourth-year medical students for the expectations of Milestones Level One in obstetrics and gynecology. This curriculum can serve as a framework as medical schools and specific specialties work to meet the first steps of the ACGME's Next Accreditation System.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Residency programs seek to match the best candidates with their positions. To avoid ethical conflicts in this process, the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP or Match) has rules regarding appropriate conduct, including guidelines on contact between candidates and programs. Our study examined communication between obstetrics and gynecology (Ob-Gyn) programs and residency candidates after interviewing and prior to ranking. Methods Ob-Gyn program directors in the United States were sent a self-administered survey via e-mail. Data were collected and analyzed using descriptive methods to examine communication practices of these programs. Results The response rate was 40%. The findings showed that respondents had variable interpretations of the NRMP rules and suggest that programs may be communicating their match intentions especially to favored candidates. Respondents' open text comments highlighted program directors' frustrations with current NRMP rules. Discussion NRMP communication rules are intended to minimize pressure on residency candidates. Our findings suggest they may be leading to unforeseen stresses on program directors and candidates. Conclusions As educational leaders in medicine, we must consider what professional communications are acceptable without increasing the pressure on candidates during the ranking and match process.

Background Promotion for academic faculty depends on a variety of factors, including their research, publications, national leadership, and quality of their teaching. Objective We sought to determine the importance of resident evaluations of faculty for promotion in obstetrics-gynecology programs. Methods A 28-item questionnaire was developed and distributed to 185 department chairs of US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs. Results Fifty percent (93 of 185) responded, with 40% (37 of 93) stating that teaching has become more important for promotion in the past 10 years. When faculty are being considered for promotion, teaching evaluations were deemed “very important” 60% of the time for clinician track faculty but were rated as mainly “not important” or “not applicable” for research faculty. Sixteen respondents (17%) stated a faculty member had failed to achieve promotion in the past 5 years because of poor teaching evaluations. Positive teaching evaluations outweighed low publication numbers for clinical faculty 24% of the time, compared with 5% for research faculty and 8% for tenured faculty being considered for promotion. The most common reason for rejection for promotion in all tracks was the number of publications. Awards for excellence in teaching improved chances of promotion. Conclusions Teaching quality is becoming more important in academic obstetrics-gynecology departments, especially for clinical faculty. Although in most institutions promotion is not achieved without adequate research and publications, the importance of teaching excellence is obvious, with 1 of 6 (17%) departments reporting a promotion had been denied due to poor teaching evaluations.