This is Part 2 is a series of posts about the development of a pathology resident evaluation system.

With the introduction of the ACGME Milestones for pathology training programs, many people expressed to me their frustration with using it. In Part 1 I discussed a few specifics about why it is confusing to use and difficult to interpret. Before looking for a solution, I wanted to identify what I wanted to accomplish by reviewing the milestones and what a quality evaluation system should look like. Here’s what I came up:

  • Offer an alternative evaluation system and sincerely stress the need to improve the current “Milestones Project” by the ACGME.
  • Generate a report that is easy to understand, interpret, and fill out for the evaluator
  • Generate a report that is easy to interpret by the resident/fellow
    Generate a report that helps determine when a resident/fellow is ready for increased responsibility
  • Allow comparison of residents both within their PGY year and with other PGY years
  • Remove subjectivity and use data driven objectivity to accurately evaluate resident/fellow performance.
  • Generate a report to be used as a reference for residents to demonstrate they are capable of performing the tasks of a practicing pathologist (i.e. Graduated Responsibilities)
  • Create a living report that is updated throughout training and summarized at the end of the evaluation period.
  • Use Milestones as a guide to identify the categories being evaluated

Knowing what I would like to accomplish will help guide the process and help determine if we have reach the appropriate end point.

Is there something else that the milestones should accomplish but currently doesn’t?  What else should a good evaluation system accomplish? What in-house evaluation forms does your program use? Please let me know in the comments!