Curricular milestones in rheumatology: Is granular better?

Dr. Criscione-Schreiber said there’s traditionally been less direct observation in rheumatology training than people would like to think. “It used to be more like what we call the piano analogy. You send them into a room for an hour alone with a piano and some sheet music and they come out saying ‘I can play the piano.’ And you believe them.”

Dr. Brown, meanwhile, compared traditional training approaches to what he called the teabag model. The trainee “was the teabag steeping in the hot water of an academic medical center, and the major criteria for finishing was time,” he said. “I think all of us would recognize that this doesn’t take into consideration different environments, different learning styles and rates of learning.”

Using the milestones

Dr. Panush, in an interview, noted that the implementation of rubric-based education in internal medicine training came with a host of problems resulting in published critiques. He cited a recent article by Ronald Witteles, MD, and Abraham Verghese, MD, both of Stanford (Calif.) University, that criticized the reporting milestones as onerous to implement in large internal medicine programs, leading to excess administrative work and box-ticking (JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176[11]:1599-1600).

But rheumatology fellowship programs, which are generally small, may be less likely to find the curricular milestones burdensome, their champions say. The success of these milestones depends, in large part, on how people choose to integrate them into their training programs.

“The milestones appear a little daunting because they’re new,” Dr. Bolster said, cautioning that they are not designed to be foisted wholesale on trainees. Used judiciously, she said, the curricular milestones can help identify areas of strength and weakness and foster dialogue. “What I do is select a few of them, a couple of times a year, to go over with each fellow,” she said. “I also recommend them for fellows to use as self-reflection, so that they may determine where they are in terms of training.”

Details vs. the big picture

Anne Bass, MD, the rheumatology program director at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who did not take part in either the curricular milestones writing committee or the editorial, said they could be used piecemeal, helping program directors to design portions of their curriculum, or to provide feedback and remediation by pointing out areas of trainee weakness.

But Dr. Bass also said, echoing a concern of the editorialists, that she felt that the milestones’ emphasis on highly specific strengths and weaknesses risked “losing the forest for the trees.”

A trainee who appears weak in one knowledge area is likely to have broader shortcomings, she said.

“If you’re somebody who gets the basic facts, you’re able to interview the patient, do the physical exam, and collect the information, but you’re not really able to apply it yet – that’s probably something global to that trainee that will apply with other areas as well,” not just the milestone you’re measuring, Dr. Bass said.

“The whole point about milestones is it’s showing you where along the continuum you are. But the continuum goes from data collection and description to application, testing, management, teaching – that’s kind of the spectrum, and that development is generally across the board. It’s not usually specific to one area.”

Training rheumatologists like pilots

The authors of the milestones say they’re responding to a sense widely shared in the rheumatology community that training must adapt to the needs of a changing field.