{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022747156605424323, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03062117235345582, 'mean_word_length': 5.537142857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Raising the Bar: Reassessing Standards for Procedural Competence

Background: How often passing standards for clinical skills examinations should be reexamined is unknown. Purpose: The goal is to determine if improved resident performance affects the passing standard imposed by expert judges. Method: In 2006, we set a passing standard for a central venous catheter insertion clinical skills examination using an expert panel. From 2007 to 2010, trainee scores improved steadily. In 2010, a new expert panel provided judgments for the examination using 4 consecutive years of resident performance data. Interrater reliabilities and test–retest reliability (stability) were calculated. Passing standards from 2006 and 2010 were compared. Results: Judgments provided were reliable and stable. The new passing standard was 88% for internal jugular and 87% for subclavian central venous catheter insertion compared to 79% for both sites in 2006. Conclusions: Cumulative performance data influenced experts to set a more stringent minimum passing standard. Standards should be regularly reviewed to ensure they are fair and appropriately rigorous.