About | Search | Report Feedback  

Even Better Together.

The quality and quantity of tools such as workshops, presentations and curriculum support is magnified when we work together.

Verification of Graduate Medical Education Training

In an effort to improve and streamline the credentialing process, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), American Hospital Association (AHA), National Association of Medical Staff Services (NAMSS), and Organization of Program Directors Associations (OPDA) have collaborated to create a standardized “Verification of Graduate Medical Education Training” (VGMET). This group has also been working with the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) to address the needs for licensure within the form and will continue that work.

APDIM formed a work group, led by Heather Laird-Fick, MD and David A. Wininger, MD, to address the need for a standardized, less subjective iteration of the verification of training form. The work group sought to provide clarity to AAIM members and develop change recommendations to the form. The Internal Medicine Education Advisory Board (IMEAB) accepted the work group’s recommendations and subsequently formed a working group to expand those efforts. A final version will be presented to the American Hospital Association as a form change request.

FAQ for Completing the Verification of Graduate Medical Education Training

Background: A standardized “Verification of Graduate Medical Education Training” (VGMET) form has been developed through collaboration of multiple accrediting bodies. This form will be completed once, either at the time of completion of training (2016 and future graduates) OR at the time of the first request for verification (for pre-2–16 graduates).

How do I respond to the question, “Was the trainee subject to any of the following during training? (i) Conditions or restrictions beyond those generally associated with the training regimen at your facility”.

The question could be re-phrased to:

  • Did the trainee experience any disciplinary actions, such as probation or revocation of clinical privileges because of performance problems?
  • Was the trainee required to extend training to successfully demonstrate competence (excluding any leaves of absence)?

A trainee may receive negative feedback, letters of concern, warnings, and reprimands. All of these communications reinforce expectations of the facility or program without necessarily instituting a disciplinary or adverse action. They are not necessarily “conditions or restrictions” on clinical privileges or on the standing within a program.

What are examples of conditions or restrictions generally associated with training?

The need for direct supervision for certain types of clinical care, including performance of procedures, until a trainee has been deemed competent to perform these with indirect supervision, is an example.

In addition, graduate medical education programs routinely utilize focused remediation and/or learning plans to ensure that trainees have attained competence. Not every trainee requires such intervention, yet it is still a part of the normal process of graduate medical education.

Similarly, some programs may temporarily restrict some clinical duties, such as operating room assignments, as part of a focused remediation for medical knowledge or other requirements to allow greater flexibility and time. If this is a routine policy rather than a disciplinary action, it would generally not be reported in this section.

On occasion clinical privileges are restricted as part of other institutional policies. For example, an institution may require that residents refrain from clinical care while ill and febrile, as part of an infection control measure or response to influenza epidemic.