BACKGROUND:Longitudinal assessments are increasingly common as a component of continuing certification programs offered by medical specialty boards. The goal of this study was to understand anesthesiologists' utilization pattern, performance, and perception of the longitudinal assessment program administered by the American Board of Anesthesiology (Raleigh, North Carolina). METHODS:The authors analyzed assessment usage and survey data from all anesthesiologists who participated in the Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology (MOCA) Minute from January 2018 to December 2019. RESULTS:During the 24-month study period, 25,404 anesthesiologists completed all 120 questions assigned in at least 1 calendar year, collectively 5,801,160 responses to 1,646 unique questions. Participants were more likely to complete questions at the end of each quarter, with the highest frequency at the end of the year. Seventy-five percent of responses were first-time attempts, and 17% were first repeats. The median interval between original question presentation and first repeat was 314 days. The mean ± SD percent correct score was 68.3 ± 8.0% for first-time questions and 75.5 ± 12.6% for first repeats. The mean ± SD time to answer a first-time question was 26.8 ± 13.1 s, with shorter times for questions with correct than incorrect responses (25.0 ± 12.7 vs . 30.7 ± 13.3 s; time difference, -5.69 s; 95% CI, -5.71 to -5.66; P < 0.001). Of 5.11 million responses with ratings of relevance (88.2% of all responses analyzed), 4.86 million (95.2%) were felt to be somewhat or very relevant to practice. The percent correct scores were higher for responses with higher relevance and confidence ratings. For responses rated "not relevant," "somewhat relevant," and "very relevant," the percent correct was 58.5%, 67.6%, and 77.0%, respectively; for responses rated as "unsure," "somewhat confident," and "very confident," the percent correct was 53.6%, 67.9%, and 84.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:MOCA Minute was generally used as designed. Evidence of learning was suggested by improved performance on repeat questions.

BACKGROUND:The BASIC Examination was added to the US examination system for anesthesiology certification in 2014. The American Board of Anesthesiology conducted retrospective analyses to assess whether resident demographics, program characteristics, and/or prior examination performance were associated with first-time BASIC pass rates. METHODS:Anesthesiology residents who took the BASIC Examination for the first time from July 2014 to November 2022 were eligible to participate, and they had at least 2 more attempts (or opportunities to attempt) through December 2023. First-time and eventual pass rates (ie, based on up to 3 attempts) were calculated for each demographic group. For those residents who had the clinical base year in-training examination (CBY ITE) scores available, demographic group performance differences on this examination were first examined. Mixed-effects logistical regression models assessed how resident demographics, program characteristics, and/or prior CBY ITE scores were associated with the odds of passing the BASIC the first time. RESULTS:The analyses included 17,286 examination attempts from 15,789 residents. The majority of residents were male (65.8%), non-Hispanic or Latino (76.2%), White (47.8%), and US medical school graduates (87.4%). Differences in the first-attempt BASIC pass rates included male (92.7%) vs female (88.1%), non-Hispanic or Latino (92.0%) vs Hispanic or Latino (85.8%), Asian (92.6%) and White (92.4%) vs Black/African American (81.9%), respectively, and US (91.5%) vs international (88.6%) medical school graduates. Females had significantly lower odds of passing the BASIC the first time than males (odds ratio [OR] = 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.60); Black/African American residents (OR = 0.41, 95% CI, 0.33-0.51) and Middle Eastern or North African residents (OR = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.46-0.91) had lower odds of passing the BASIC on first attempt than White residents; Hispanic or Latino residents had lower odds of passing the BASIC initially than non-Hispanic or Latino residents (OR = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.42-0.64). Nevertheless, all demographic subgroups' eventual pass rates were >99%.Male and White residents outperformed female and Black/African American residents, respectively, in CBY ITEs. The gender and race performance gaps in the first-time BASIC pass rates were attenuated but not eliminated after controlling for their CBY ITE scores-compared to male and White residents, respectively, the odds of passing the BASIC the first time changed from 46% to 56% for female residents, and from 41% to 53% for Black/African American residents. CONCLUSIONS:Female and nonwhite residents had lower first-time BASIC Examination pass rates. Almost all trainees passed by their up-to-third attempts. Future studies are needed to understand the basis of these differences and identify opportunities for improvement.

BACKGROUND:Milestones evaluation is mandated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to help training programs measure residents' progress toward competency and identify specific areas for trainee improvement. Data from training programs raised concerns that Milestones ratings may reflect the year of training more than resident progress toward competency. We examined the relationship between residents' Milestones ratings toward the end of residency training and their performance on the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) examinations, widely considered as the gold standard of competency. METHODS:We compared Milestones 2.0 ratings and board scores of all anesthesiologists who completed an ACGME-accredited residency program between July 2021 and June 2022 (AY22) and had their first-time ABA ADVANCED Examination (written), Standardized Oral Examination (SOE) and Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) performance available by 2023. We first assessed the correlation between the average rating achieved across all 23 Milestones during the last 6 months of residency training and the Z-scores of these three examinations among first-time takers. Then, we evaluated the correlations between 9 specific Milestones and their conceptually related domains tested by the ADVANCED, the SOE, and the OSCE; we calculated Pearson and polychoric correlation coefficients for continuous and ordinal data, respectively. RESULTS:All 23 Milestones 2.0 AY22 ratings were available for 1849 Post Graduate Year (PGY)-4, Clinical Anesthesia Year 3 (CA-3) residents. These were matched to 1799 first-time ADVANCED and 1383 first-time SOE and OSCE takers. The average ACGME Milestones ratings across all competencies were significantly correlated with examination Z-scores (all P < .001)-the ADVANCED (r = 0.135 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.089-0.180], the SOE (r = 0.117 [0.065-0.169]), and the OSCE (r = 0.112 [0.060-0.164]). For the domain-specific comparisons, scores on the ADVANCED Examination correlated modestly with the Medical Knowledge Milestone domain (r = 0.289, P < .001), but there were no statistically significant associations between SOE task ratings and their related Milestones domains (ρ = 0.027 to 0.091, P = .31 to 0.81). In comparisons of similar domains evaluated by OSCE stations and the Milestones, 2 were statistically significantly correlated with a weak magnitude (Interpretation of Monitors and Echocardiograms [ρ = 0.093, P = .031] and Ethical Issues [ρ = 0.049, P = .003]) while 2 others were not statistically significant (Application of Ultrasonography [ρ = 0.052, P = .775] and Communication with other Professionals [ρ = 0.052, P = .086]). CONCLUSIONS:There was a modest correlation between the last Medical Knowledge Milestone achieved and the ADVANCED Examination. However, the weak correlations between residency Milestones and the SOE or OSCE performance suggest that the Milestones system, as currently implemented by anesthesiology training programs, does not predict certifying examination performance.

PURPOSE:The COVID-19 pandemic prompted training institutions and national credentialing organizations to administer examinations virtually. This study compared task difficulty, examiner grading, candidate performance, and other psychometric properties between in-person and virtual standardized oral examinations (SOEs) administered by the American Board of Anesthesiology. METHOD:This retrospective study included SOEs administered in person from March 2018 to March 2020 and virtually from December 2020 to November 2021. The in-person and virtual SOEs share the same structure, including 4 tasks of preoperative evaluation, intraoperative management, postoperative care, and additional topics. The Many-Facet Rasch Model was used to estimate candidate performance, examiner grading severity, and task difficulty for the in-person and virtual SOEs separately; the virtual SOE was equated to the in-person SOE by common examiners and all tasks. The independent-samples and partially overlapping-samples t tests were used to compare candidate performance and examiner grading severity between these 2 formats, respectively. RESULTS:In-person (n = 3,462) and virtual (n = 2,959) first-time candidates were comparable in age, sex, race and ethnicity, and whether they were U.S. medical school graduates. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) candidate performance was 2.96 (1.76) logits for the virtual SOE, which was statistically significantly better than that for the in-person SOE (mean [SD], 2.86 [1.75]; Welch independent-samples t test, P = .02); however, the effect size was negligible (Cohen d = 0.06). The difference in the grading severity of examiners who rated the in-person (n = 398; mean [SD], 0.00 [0.73]) versus virtual (n = 341; mean [SD], 0.07 [0.77]) SOE was not statistically significant (Welch partially overlapping-samples t test, P = .07). CONCLUSIONS:Candidate performance and examiner grading severity were comparable between the in-person and virtual SOEs, supporting the reliability and validity of the virtual oral exam in this large-volume, high-stakes setting.

BACKGROUND:The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires anesthesiology training programs to submit Milestones ratings for each resident every 6 months, starting in the 2014 to 2015 academic year. We aimed to understand how anesthesiology residents progress through the Milestones evaluations from residency entry to graduation. METHODS:Anesthesiology Milestones 1.0 included 25 subcompetencies in 6 core competencies of Patient Care, Medical Knowledge, Systems-Based Practice, Practice-Based Learning & Improvement, Professionalism, and Interpersonal & Communication Skills. Milestones data from all anesthesiology residency programs from July 2015 to June 2019 were used to (1) assess the prevalence of straight-lining (ie, percentage of residents who received the same rating for all 25 subcompetencies for each program per reporting period), (2) describe residents' progression trajectories in each subcompetency, including the baseline at 6-month training, growth rate (ie, rate increase every 12 months), and outcomes on graduation (ie, percentage of residency graduates who received at least 1 Level 4 [target for graduation] or above subcompetency rating, and percentage of graduates who did not reach Level 4 for at least 1 subcompetency), and (3) use 3-level linear mixed-effect models to examine individual resident growth in each subcompetency over time while accounting for clustering effect of residency programs. RESULTS:The analyses included 11,691 residents from 153 training programs. Among 6696 clinical anesthesia year 3 residents, 98.3% received at least 1 Level 4 or above rating on graduation; 28.8% to 36.8% of the graduating cohort did not reach Level 4 for at least 1 subcompetency among the 6 core competencies. One hundred and thirty-six programs (88.9% of 153) had straight-lining for at least 1 reporting period. For the multilevel linear mixed-effect models, the fixed intercept estimates were close to 1.0 for Professionalism and Interpersonal & Communication Skills subcompetencies while those for Patient Care subcompetencies were <0.75; the fixed slope estimates were near 1.0 for all 25 subcompetencies. Across all subcompetencies, residency programs accounted for 63% to 84% of between-resident variability in the baseline ratings and 60% to 92% of between-resident variability in the growth rates. CONCLUSIONS:We found a high prevalence of straight-lining in Anesthesiology Milestones 1.0 ratings. This raises concerns about whether Milestones evaluations reflect individual resident performance in specific domains. The programs explained most of the between-resident variability in both baseline ratings and growth rates. Future studies are needed to promote standardization and consistency of Milestones evaluations, allowing learners to track their progress and target specific areas to improve performance.

Linear logistic test models (LLTMs), leveraging item response theory and linear regression, offer an elegant method for learning about item characteristics in complex content areas. This study used LLTMs to model single-best-answer, multiple-choice-question response data from two medical subspecialty certification examinations in multiple years and found that word count, proportion of complex words, number of options (3- vs. 4-option), whether including an image, nature of the question task (identifying risks, diagnostic test, management), and whether including application context significantly predicted item difficulty in one or both of the Critical Care Medicine and Pediatric Anesthesiology exams. The differences in the item characteristics that were significant predictors of item difficulty and their associated coefficient estimates between the two exams suggest possible domain differences. This study highlights the possibilities and challenges of using LLTMs to identify item characteristics for complex assessments. The results may help inform or expedite item writing and reviewing processes.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Board of Anesthesiology transitioned from in-person to virtual administration of its APPLIED Examination, assessing more than 3000 candidates for certification purposes remotely in 2021. Four hundred examiners were involved in delivering and scoring Standardized Oral Examinations (SOEs) and Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). More than 80% of candidates started their exams on time and stayed connected throughout the exam without any problems. Only 74 (2.5%) SOE and 45 (1.5%) OSCE candidates required rescheduling due to technical difficulties. Of those who experienced "significant issues", concerns with OSCE technical stations (interpretation of monitors and interpretation of echocardiograms) were reported most frequently (6% of candidates). In contrast, 23% of examiners "sometimes" lost connectivity during their multiple exam sessions, on a continuum from minor inconvenience to inability to continue. 84% of SOE candidates and 89% of OSCE candidates described "smooth" interactions with examiners and standardized patients/standardized clinicians, respectively. However, only 71% of SOE candidates and 75% of OSCE candidates considered themselves to be able to demonstrate their knowledge and skills without obstacles. When compared with their in-person experiences, approximately 40% of SOE examiners considered virtual evaluation to be more difficult than in-person evaluation and believed the remote format negatively affected their development as an examiner. The virtual format was considered to be less secure by 56% and 40% of SOE and OSCE examiners, respectively. The retirement of exam materials used virtually due to concern for compromise had implications for subsequent exam development. The return to in-person exams in 2022 was prompted by multiple factors, especially concerns regarding standardization and security. The technology is not yet perfect, especially for testing in-person communication skills and displaying dynamic exam materials. Nevertheless, the American Board of Anesthesiology's experience demonstrated the feasibility of conducting large-scale, high-stakes oral and performance exams in a virtual format and highlighted the adaptability and dedication of candidates, examiners, and administering board staff.

Background: The American Board of Anesthesiology's Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), as a component of its initial certification process, had been administered in-person in a dedicated assessment center since its launch in 2018 until March 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a virtual format of the exam was piloted in December 2020 and was administered in 2021. This study aimed to compare candidate performance, examiner grading severity, and scenario difficulty between these two formats of the OSCE. Methods: The Many-Facet Rasch Model was utilized to estimate candidate performance, examiner grading severity, and scenario difficulty for the in-person and virtual OSCEs separately. The virtual OSCE was equated to the in-person OSCE by common examiners and common scenarios. Independent-samples t-test was used to compare candidate performance, and partially overlapping samples t-tests were applied to compare examiner grading severity and scenario difficulty between the in-person and virtual OSCEs. Results: The in-person (n = 3235) and virtual (n = 2934) first-time candidates were comparable in age, sex, race/ ethnicity, and whether U.S. medical school graduates. The virtual scenarios (n = 35, mean [0.21] +/- SD [0.38] in logits) were more difficult than the in-person scenarios (n = 93, 0.00 +/- 0.69, Welch's partially overlapping samples t-test, p = 0.01); there were no statistically significant differences in examiner severity (n = 390, -0.01 +/- 0.82 vs. n = 304, -0.02 +/- 0.93, Welch's partially overlapping samples t-test, p = 0.81) or candidate performance (2.19 +/- 0.93 vs. 2.18 +/- 0.92, Welch's independent samples t-test, p = 0.83) between the in-person and virtual OSCEs. Conclusions: Our retrospective analyses of first-time OSCEs found comparable candidate performance and examiner grading severity between the in-person and virtual formats, despite the virtual scenarios being more difficult than the in-person scenarios. These results provided assurance that the virtual OSCE functioned reasonably well in a high-stakes setting.

Background The American Board of Anesthesiology piloted 3-option multiple-choice items (MCIs) for its 2020 administration of 150-item subspecialty in-training examinations for Critical Care Medicine (ITE-CCM) and Pediatric Anesthesiology (ITE-PA). The 3-option MCIs were transformed from their 4-option counterparts, which were administered in 2019, by removing the least effective distractor. The purpose of this study was to compare physician performance, response time, and item and exam characteristics between the 4-option and 3-option exams. Methods Independent-samples t-test was used to examine the differences in physician percent-correct score; paired t-test was used to examine the differences in response time and item characteristics. The Kuder and Richardson Formula 20 was used to calculate the reliability of each exam form. Both the traditional (distractor being selected by fewer than 5% of examinees and/or showing a positive correlation with total score) and sliding scale (adjusting the frequency threshold of distractor being chosen by item difficulty) methods were used to identify non-functioning distractors (NFDs). Results Physicians who took the 3-option ITE-CCM (mean = 67.7%) scored 2.1 percent correct higher than those who took the 4-option ITE-CCM (65.7%). Accordingly, 3-option ITE-CCM items were significantly easier than their 4-option counterparts. No such differences were found between the 4-option and 3-option ITE-PAs (71.8% versus 71.7%). Item discrimination (4-option ITE-CCM [an average of 0.13], 3-option ITE-CCM [0.12]; 4-option ITE-PA [0.08], 3-option ITE-PA [0.09]) and exam reliability (0.75 and 0.74 for 4- and 3-option ITE-CCMs, respectively; 0.62 and 0.67 for 4-option and 3-option ITE-PAs, respectively) were similar between these two formats for both ITEs. On average, physicians spent 3.4 (55.5 versus 58.9) and 1.3 (46.2 versus 47.5) seconds less per item on 3-option items than 4-option items for ITE-CCM and ITE-PA, respectively. Using the traditional method, the percentage of NFDs dropped from 51.3% in the 4-option ITE-CCM to 37.0% in the 3-option ITE-CCM and from 62.7% to 46.0% for the ITE-PA; using the sliding scale method, the percentage of NFDs dropped from 36.0% to 21.7% for the ITE-CCM and from 44.9% to 27.7% for the ITE-PA. Conclusions Three-option MCIs function as robustly as their 4-option counterparts. The efficiency achieved by spending less time on each item poses opportunities to increase content coverage for a fixed testing period. The results should be interpreted in the context of exam content and distribution of examinee abilities.

BACKGROUND:The American Board of Anesthesiology administers the APPLIED Examination as a part of initial certification, which as of 2018 includes 2 components-the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE) and the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). The goal of this study is to investigate the measurement construct(s) of the APPLIED Examination to assess whether the SOE and the OSCE measure distinct constructs (ie, factors). METHODS:Exploratory item factor analysis of candidates' performance ratings was used to determine the number of constructs, and confirmatory item factor analysis to estimate factor loadings within each construct and correlation(s) between the constructs. RESULTS:In exploratory item factor analysis, the log-likelihood ratio test and Akaike information criterion index favored the 3-factor model, with factors reflecting the SOE, OSCE Communication and Professionalism, and OSCE Technical Skills. The Bayesian information criterion index favored the 2-factor model, with factors reflecting the SOE and the OSCE. In confirmatory item factor analysis, both models suggest moderate correlation between the SOE factor and the OSCE factor; the correlation was 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.55) for the 3-factor model and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.54-0.64) for the 2-factor model. The factor loadings were lower for Technical Skills stations of the OSCE (ranging from 0.11 to 0.25) compared with those of the SOE and Communication and Professionalism stations of the OSCE (ranging from 0.36 to 0.50). CONCLUSIONS:The analyses provide evidence that the SOE and the OSCE measure distinct constructs, supporting the rationale for administering both components of the APPLIED Examination for initial certification in anesthesiology.

BACKGROUND: A temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates that occurred around the turn of the millennium may have workforce implications. The aims of this study are to describe, between 2005 and 2015, (1) demographic changes in the workforce of physicians trained as anesthesiologists; (2) national and state densities of these physicians, as well as temporal changes in the densities; and (3) retention of medical licenses by mid- and later-career anesthesiologists. METHODS: Using records from the American Board of Anesthesiology and state medical and osteopathic boards, the numbers of licensed physicians aged 30–59 years who had completed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited anesthesiology residency training were calculated cross-sectionally for 2005, 2010, and 2015. Demographic trends were then described. Census data were used to calculate national and state densities of licensed physicians. Individual longitudinal data were used to describe retention of medical licenses among older physicians. RESULTS: The number of licensed physicians trained as anesthesiologists aged 30–59 years increased from 32,644 in 2005 to 36,543 in 2010 and 36,624 in 2015, representing a national density of 1.10, 1.18, and 1.14 per 10,000 population in those years, respectively. The density of anesthesiologists among states ranged from 0.37 to 3.10 per 10,000 population. The age distribution differed across the years. For example, anesthesiologists aged 40–49 years predominated in 2005 (47%), but by 2015, only 31% of anesthesiologists were aged 40–49 years. The proportion of female anesthesiologists grew from 22% in 2005, to 24% in 2010, and to 28% in 2015, particularly among early-career anesthesiologists. For anesthesiologists with licenses in 2005, the number who still had active licenses in 2015 decreased by 9.6% for those aged 45–49 years, by 14.1% for those aged 50–54 years, and by 19.7% for those aged 55–59 years. CONCLUSIONS: The temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates around the turn of the 21st century decreased the proportion of anesthesiologists who were midcareer as of 2015. This may affect the future availability of senior leaders as well as the future overall workforce in the specialty as older anesthesiologists retire. National efforts to plan for workforce needs should recognize the geographical variability in the distribution of anesthesiologists.

In 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic interrupted the administration of the APPLIED Examination, the final part of the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) staged examination system for initial certification. In response, the ABA developed, piloted, and implemented an Internet-based "virtual" form of the examination to allow administration of both components of the APPLIED Exam (Standardized Oral Examination and Objective Structured Clinical Examination) when it was impractical and unsafe for candidates and examiners to travel and have in-person interactions. This article describes the development of the ABA virtual APPLIED Examination, including its rationale, examination format, technology infrastructure, candidate communication, and examiner training. Although the logistics are formidable, we report a methodology for successfully introducing a large-scale, high-stakes, 2-element, remote examination that replicates previously validated assessments.

With its first administration of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate this type of assessment into its high-stakes certification examination system. The fundamental rationale for the ABA's introduction of the OSCE is to include an assessment that allows candidates for board certification to demonstrate what they actually "do" in domains relevant to clinical practice. Inherent in this rationale is that the OSCE will capture competencies not well assessed in the current written and oral examinations-competencies that will allow the ABA to judge whether a candidate meets the standards expected for board certification more properly. This special article describes the ABA's journey from initial conceptualization through first administration of the OSCE, including the format of the OSCE, the process for scenario development, the standardized patient program that supports OSCE administration, examiner training, scoring, and future assessment of reliability, validity, and impact of the OSCE. This information will be beneficial to both those involved in the initial certification process, such as residency graduate candidates and program directors, and others contemplating the use of high-stakes summative OSCE assessments.

In 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) into its initial certification examination system. Previously, the ABA's staged examination system consisted of 2 written examinations (the BASIC and ADVANCED examinations) and the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The OSCE and the existing SOE are now 2 separate components of the APPLIED Examination. This report presents the results of the first-year OSCE administration. A total of 1410 candidates took both the OSCE and the SOE in 2018. Candidate performance approximated a normal distribution for both the OSCE and the SOE, and was not associated with the timing of the examination, including day of the week, morning versus afternoon session, and order of the OSCE and the SOE. Practice-based Learning and Improvement was the most difficult station, while Application of Ultrasonography was the least difficult. The correlation coefficient between SOE and OSCE scores was 0.35 ([95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.30-0.39]; P < .001). Scores for the written ADVANCED Examination were modestly correlated with scores for the SOE (r = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.25-0.34]; P < .001) and the OSCE (r = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10-0.20]; P < .001). Most of the candidates who failed the SOE passed the OSCE, and most of the candidates who failed the OSCE passed the SOE. Of the 1410 candidates, 77 (5.5%) failed the OSCE, 155 (11.0%) failed the SOE, and 25 (1.8%) failed both. Thus, 207 (14.7%) failed at least 1 component of the APPLIED Examination. Adding an OSCE to a board certification examination system is feasible. Preliminary evidence indicates that the OSCE measures aspects of candidate abilities distinct from those measured by other examinations used for initial board certification.

BACKGROUND:Substance use disorder among physicians can expose both physicians and their patients to significant risk. Data regarding the epidemiology and outcomes of physician substance use disorder are scarce but could guide policy formulation and individual treatment decisions. This article describes the incidence and outcomes of substance use disorder that resulted in either a report to a certifying body or death in physicians after the completion of anesthesiology training. METHODS:Physicians who completed training in U.S. anesthesiology residency programs from 1977 to 2013 and maintained at least one active medical license were included in this retrospective cohort study (n = 44,736). Substance use disorder cases were ascertained through records of the American Board of Anesthesiology and the National Death Index. RESULTS:Six hundred and one physicians had evidence of substance use disorder after completion of training, with an overall incidence of 0.75 per 1,000 physician-years (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.80; 0.84 [0.78 to 0.90] in men, 0.43 [0.35 to 0.52] in women). The highest incidence rate occurred in 1992 (1.79 per 1,000 physician-years [95% CI, 1.12 to 2.59]). The cumulative percentage expected to develop substance use disorder within 30 yr estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis equaled 1.6% (95% CI, 1.4 to 1.7%). The most common substances used by 353 individuals for whom information was available were opioids (193 [55%]), alcohol (141 [40%]), and anesthetics/hypnotics (69 [20%]). Based on a median of 11.1 (interquartile range, 4.4 to 19.8) yr of follow-up, the cumulative proportion of survivors estimated to experience at least one relapse within 30 yr was 38% (95% CI, 31 to 43%). Of the 601 physicians with substance use disorder, 114 (19%) were dead from a substance use disorder-related cause at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:A substantial proportion of anesthesiologists who develop substance use disorder after the completion of training die of this condition, and the risk of relapse is high in those who survive.

American Boards of Medical Specialties have emphasized single point in time testing for summative assessment of cognitive expertise necessary for board certification. In 2016, the American Board of Anesthesiology introduced Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology (MOCA), a longitudinal assessment platform that provides diplomates formative feedback with continuous questions over time and adapts questions to areas of knowledge weaknesses over time. This paper describes the rationale, history, and early results of the American Board of Anesthesiology MOCA platform.