MyoSkel Competency Dashboards
Program Director Dashboard
Cohort Oversight, ACGME Milestones & ABOS Readiness
- ABOS Part I Blueprint–Aligned
- ABOS Oral Case Framework–Aligned
- ACGME Milestones–Aligned
- Preview — Sample Data
Sample Orthopaedic Surgery Residency · 12 residents · 2025–2026 · Mid-Year Review
Formal ACGME Milestone determinations require qualified faculty judgment and Clinical Competency Committee review. MyoSkel presents the assessment record and its own educational analytics side by side, and never presents either as an official determination.
Cohort filters
Sets the reviewed milestone positions shown in the domain overview and the matrix. Evidence, blueprint readiness, simulations and the review queue always report the current window (2025–2026 · Mid-Year Review).
Training year
Showing 12 of 12 residents. Applies to every section on this page.
Evidence base
Residents With Adequate Evidence
10 / 12
Residents whose records carry 75% or more of their relevant subcompetencies with at least 3 linked assessment items drawn from at least 2 different evidence types, and no subcompetency left uncovered. A statement about the assessment record, not about the resident.
Committee agenda
Residents Requiring Review
7 / 12
11 items raised by 7 configurable MyoSkel review conditions — evidence volume, coverage, assessor agreement, review recency, and MyoSkel educational metrics.
ACGME Milestones–Aligned
Milestone Evidence Coverage
80%
191 of 238 relevant resident–subcompetency pairs carry adequate assessment evidence. Subcompetencies recorded as Not Yet Assessable are excluded rather than counted as gaps.
ABOS Part I Blueprint–Aligned
Blueprint Readiness Index
71.2%
up 2.8 pts vs. previous review period
Cohort MyoSkel readiness weighted by the official ABOS Part I blueprint weights, across 100% of the blueprint. A MyoSkel educational metric — not an ABOS score, not a predicted score, and not a statement about any exam outcome.
ABOS Oral Case Framework–Aligned
Oral Case Simulation Coverage
10 / 12
83% of the cohort
Residents with at least 6 MyoSkel case simulations spanning 7 or more of the nine official domains. 113 simulations in total. Simulations, not ABOS examination results.
Milestone Domain Overview
Version 2.2 · 12 residents · 2025–2026 · Mid-Year ReviewAll six official competency domains, showing how the cohort’s reviewed positions are distributed, how much assessment evidence sits behind them, and how the distribution moved since 2024–2025 · Year-End Review. Levels are the values faculty entered and the Clinical Competency Committee reviewed.
Formal ACGME Milestone determinations require qualified faculty judgment and Clinical Competency Committee review.
Level 4 is the developmental graduation goal for a subcompetency, not an automatic graduation, promotion, board-eligibility, or certification requirement.
Distribution of reviewed positions
Faculty-entered · CCC reviewed84 reviewed responses across 12 residents. A half step sits in the level below it: a 3.5 is counted at Level 3.
- Level 113
- Level 228
- Level 324
- Level 417
- Level 50
- Non-numeric2
Informational cohort summary — not an ACGME reporting metric
Mean of the 82 numeric reviewed positions in this domain: 2.81 (was 2.34 at 2024–2025 · Year-End Review). Non-numeric responses are excluded rather than coerced into a number.
- Level 1
Distribution of reviewed positions
Faculty-entered · CCC reviewed24 reviewed responses across 12 residents. A half step sits in the level below it: a 3.5 is counted at Level 3.
- Level 13
- Level 211
- Level 36
- Level 44
- Level 50
- Non-numeric0
Informational cohort summary — not an ACGME reporting metric
Mean of the 24 numeric reviewed positions in this domain: 2.77 (was 2.40 at 2024–2025 · Year-End Review). Non-numeric responses are excluded rather than coerced into a number.
- Level 1
Distribution of reviewed positions
Faculty-entered · CCC reviewed36 reviewed responses across 12 residents. A half step sits in the level below it: a 3.5 is counted at Level 3.
- Level 14
- Level 211
- Level 311
- Level 48
- Level 50
- Non-numeric2
Informational cohort summary — not an ACGME reporting metric
Mean of the 34 numeric reviewed positions in this domain: 2.90 (was 2.37 at 2024–2025 · Year-End Review). Non-numeric responses are excluded rather than coerced into a number.
- Level 1
Distribution of reviewed positions
Faculty-entered · CCC reviewed24 reviewed responses across 12 residents. A half step sits in the level below it: a 3.5 is counted at Level 3.
- Level 13
- Level 212
- Level 35
- Level 44
- Level 50
- Non-numeric0
Informational cohort summary — not an ACGME reporting metric
Mean of the 24 numeric reviewed positions in this domain: 2.71 (was 2.29 at 2024–2025 · Year-End Review). Non-numeric responses are excluded rather than coerced into a number.
- Level 1
Distribution of reviewed positions
Faculty-entered · CCC reviewed36 reviewed responses across 12 residents. A half step sits in the level below it: a 3.5 is counted at Level 3.
- Level 12
- Level 213
- Level 313
- Level 47
- Level 51
- Non-numeric0
Informational cohort summary — not an ACGME reporting metric
Mean of the 36 numeric reviewed positions in this domain: 2.97 (was 2.46 at 2024–2025 · Year-End Review). Non-numeric responses are excluded rather than coerced into a number.
- Level 1
Distribution of reviewed positions
Faculty-entered · CCC reviewed36 reviewed responses across 12 residents. A half step sits in the level below it: a 3.5 is counted at Level 3.
- Level 14
- Level 213
- Level 312
- Level 47
- Level 50
- Non-numeric0
Informational cohort summary — not an ACGME reporting metric
Mean of the 36 numeric reviewed positions in this domain: 2.88 (was 2.46 at 2024–2025 · Year-End Review). Non-numeric responses are excluded rather than coerced into a number.
- Level 1
Cohort Milestone Matrix
Faculty-entered · CCC reviewedEvery cell is the reporting position faculty entered and the Clinical Competency Committee reviewed for that resident and subcompetency at 2025–2026 · Mid-Year Review — one of the nine official positions, or one of the non-numeric options that subcompetency’s own official record carries. Select any of the 20 subcompetencies as columns, and open a cell for the official descriptor text and the evidence behind it.
How to read this matrix
Formal ACGME Milestone determinations require qualified faculty judgment and Clinical Competency Committee review.
Level 4 is the developmental graduation goal for a subcompetency, not an automatic graduation, promotion, board-eligibility, or certification requirement.
The number in a cell is its meaning. MyoSkel does not name levels — the ACGME publishes no level names for these worksheets — and colour is a readability aid only.
| Resident | PC1PC | PC6PC | PC7PC | MK1MK | SBP1SBP | PBLI1PBLI | PROF1PROF | ICS1ICS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample Resident DPGY-1 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident EPGY-1 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident BPGY-2 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident FPGY-2 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident GPGY-2 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident APGY-3 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident HPGY-3 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident IPGY-3 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident CPGY-4 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident JPGY-4 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident KPGY-5 | ||||||||
| Sample Resident LPGY-5 |
Reading a cell
- 1 · 1.5 · 2 · 2.5 · 3 · 3.5 · 4 · 4.5 · 5
- The reviewed reporting position, faculty-entered and CCC-reviewed. These nine positions are the whole numeric scale; MyoSkel adds no names to them.
- NYC1
- Not Yet Completed Level 1 — available on every subcompetency’s official record.
- NYA
- Not Yet Assessable — available only on the subcompetencies whose official record carries it, and offered nowhere else.
- n ev · thin
- MyoSkel analytics: linked evidence items for that cell. “thin” marks a cell below the configured review threshold of at least 3 linked assessment items drawn from at least 2 different evidence types. It describes the evidence base, never the resident.
Cell shading follows the numeric position as a reading aid only. Every value in this table is stated as text and remains complete without colour.
Select any cell to open the resident’s record for that subcompetency — the reviewed position, the official ACGME descriptor text, the contributing assessments, and the trend across review periods.
ABOS Part I Blueprint — Cohort Performance
MyoSkel analyticsAll ten official ABOS Part I blueprint categories across 12 residents. A category’s official blueprint weight and the cohort’s MyoSkel readiness are two different measures and are kept in separate fields throughout. No passing threshold is shown anywhere, because the ABOS does not publish a per-category passing percentage.
Sort categories
Grouped bar chart of cohort MyoSkel readiness and official ABOS blueprint weight for each of the ten official categories. Every plotted value is repeated in the table below this chart.
| Official category | Cohort MyoSkel readiness | Official blueprint weight | Range across residents | Change | MyoSkel label distribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Principles | 78.2% | 13% | 62% – 91% | up 3.3 pts vs. previous review period | 7 Stronger Area · 4 Monitor · 1 Priority Review |
| Adult Spine | 66.3% | 9% | 51% – 85% | up 3.3 pts vs. previous review period | 1 Stronger Area · 6 Monitor · 5 Priority Review |
| Shoulder and Elbow | 71.3% | 7.5% | 62% – 85% | up 3.4 pts vs. previous review period | 2 Stronger Area · 7 Monitor · 3 Priority Review |
| Surgery of the Hand | 67.6% | 10.5% | 52% – 83% | up 1.8 pts vs. previous review period | 2 Stronger Area · 5 Monitor · 5 Priority Review |
| Orthopaedic Sports Medicine | 75.4% | 9.5% | 62% – 91% | up 3.4 pts vs. previous review period | 6 Stronger Area · 5 Monitor · 1 Priority Review |
| Adult Reconstruction | 72.1% | 8% | 58% – 87% | up 2.3 pts vs. previous review period | 4 Stronger Area · 5 Monitor · 3 Priority Review |
| Foot and Ankle | 67.9% | 10% | 54% – 84% | up 1.6 pts vs. previous review period | 2 Stronger Area · 5 Monitor · 5 Priority Review |
| Adult Trauma | 78.2% | 13.5% | 62% – 92% | up 2.8 pts vs. previous review period | 7 Stronger Area · 3 Monitor · 2 Priority Review |
| Pediatrics | 64.7% | 12% | 53% – 78% | up 4.1 pts vs. previous review period | 1 Stronger Area · 5 Monitor · 6 Priority Review |
| Orthopaedic Oncology | 65.4% | 7% | 50% – 80% | up 2.3 pts vs. previous review period | 2 Stronger Area · 5 Monitor · 5 Priority Review |
Areas needing educational attention
The categories where lower cohort readiness meets a larger share of the official blueprint. A curriculum-planning aid — not a prediction, and not a statement about any individual resident.
- PediatricsCohort MyoSkel readiness 64.7% · official blueprint weight 12% · residents range 53%–78% · MyoSkel label Priority Review
- Surgery of the HandCohort MyoSkel readiness 67.6% · official blueprint weight 10.5% · residents range 52%–83% · MyoSkel label Monitor
- Foot and AnkleCohort MyoSkel readiness 67.9% · official blueprint weight 10% · residents range 54%–84% · MyoSkel label Monitor
About the MyoSkel labels
Stronger Area, Monitor, and Priority Review are MyoSkel educational study-prioritisation labels. They are not ABOS classifications, they do not correspond to any ABOS passing standard, and no ABOS passing standard is shown anywhere in this view.
- Stronger Area — readiness 78% and above
- MyoSkel educational label — readiness is holding up across recent activity in this category.
- Monitor — readiness 65% and above
- MyoSkel educational label — readiness is mid-range; keep this category in the rotation.
- Priority Review — below the Monitor range
- MyoSkel educational label — readiness is lower than your other categories; worth focused study time.
ABOS Oral Case Simulation — Cohort Performance
MyoSkel analyticsThe nine official ABOS oral examination domains on the official 0–3 scale, across 113 MyoSkel case simulations run by 12 residents. These are MyoSkel simulations using the ABOS framework — teaching exercises, not the ABOS Oral Examination, and not official ABOS examination results.
Simulation period
Showing every recorded simulation.
History, physical examination, imaging and diagnostic studies, and the quality of the record.
Cohort distribution on the official 0–3 scale
- 3 — Above Expected Level61 simulations · 54%
- 2 — Expected Level52 simulations · 46%
- 1 — Below Expected Level0 simulations · 0%
- 0 — Unacceptable0 simulations · 0%
Official 0–3 rubric for this domain
- 3 — Above Expected Level
- History, physical examination, and the use and interpretation of basic and advanced imaging and other diagnostic studies exceed the expected level, supported by records that exceed the expected level.
- 2 — Expected Level
- History, physical examination, and the use and interpretation of basic and advanced imaging and other diagnostic studies are at the expected level, with records at the expected level.
- 1 — Below Expected Level
- History, physical examination, or the use and interpretation of imaging and other diagnostic studies falls below the expected level, or records are below the expected level.
- 0 — Unacceptable
- Data gathering is absent or so deficient that the information needed for safe care was not obtained or not interpreted.
Rubric text is a brief summary of the official ABOS oral examination rubric for this domain. Scores shown here come from MyoSkel simulations only.
Reaching and supporting a diagnosis from the assembled clinical and imaging data.
Cohort distribution on the official 0–3 scale
- 3 — Above Expected Level39 simulations · 35%
- 2 — Expected Level71 simulations · 63%
- 1 — Below Expected Level3 simulations · 3%
- 0 — Unacceptable0 simulations · 0%
Official 0–3 rubric for this domain
- 3 — Above Expected Level
- Diagnosis and the reasoning that supports it exceed the expected level, including recognition of atypical or complex presentations.
- 2 — Expected Level
- Diagnosis is correct and supported by appropriate interpretation of the clinical and imaging data, at the expected level.
- 1 — Below Expected Level
- Diagnosis or the interpretation supporting it falls below the expected level, with material findings missed or misread.
- 0 — Unacceptable
- Diagnosis is incorrect or unsupported in a way that would lead to unsafe care.
Rubric text is a brief summary of the official ABOS oral examination rubric for this domain. Scores shown here come from MyoSkel simulations only.
Formulating a management plan appropriate to the diagnosis and the patient.
Cohort distribution on the official 0–3 scale
- 3 — Above Expected Level25 simulations · 22%
- 2 — Expected Level83 simulations · 73%
- 1 — Below Expected Level5 simulations · 4%
- 0 — Unacceptable0 simulations · 0%
Official 0–3 rubric for this domain
- 3 — Above Expected Level
- The treatment plan exceeds the expected level, accounting for alternatives, patient factors, and contingencies.
- 2 — Expected Level
- The treatment plan is appropriate for the diagnosis and the patient and is at the expected level.
- 1 — Below Expected Level
- The treatment plan is below the expected level, omitting reasonable options or misjudging patient factors.
- 0 — Unacceptable
- The treatment plan is inappropriate for the diagnosis or would expose the patient to avoidable harm.
Rubric text is a brief summary of the official ABOS oral examination rubric for this domain. Scores shown here come from MyoSkel simulations only.
Deciding whether, when, and on whom to operate, including non-operative alternatives.
Cohort distribution on the official 0–3 scale
- 3 — Above Expected Level13 simulations · 12%
- 2 — Expected Level90 simulations · 80%
- 1 — Below Expected Level10 simulations · 9%
- 0 — Unacceptable0 simulations · 0%
Official 0–3 rubric for this domain
- 3 — Above Expected Level
- Indications for and against surgery exceed the expected level, with clear weighing of timing, alternatives, and patient-specific risk.
- 2 — Expected Level
- Indications for surgery, and the decision not to operate where appropriate, are at the expected level.
- 1 — Below Expected Level
- Indications are below the expected level — surgery offered or withheld without adequate justification.
- 0 — Unacceptable
- Surgery is indicated or performed without acceptable justification, or a clearly indicated procedure is withheld.
Rubric text is a brief summary of the official ABOS oral examination rubric for this domain. Scores shown here come from MyoSkel simulations only.
Execution of the procedure: approach, technique, and intraoperative judgement.
Cohort distribution on the official 0–3 scale
- 3 — Above Expected Level8 simulations · 10%
- 2 — Expected Level66 simulations · 85%
- 1 — Below Expected Level4 simulations · 5%
- 0 — Unacceptable0 simulations · 0%
Official 0–3 rubric for this domain
- 3 — Above Expected Level
- Operative technique and intraoperative judgement exceed the expected level, with efficient execution and sound handling of the unexpected.
- 2 — Expected Level
- Operative approach, technique, and intraoperative judgement are at the expected level.
- 1 — Below Expected Level
- Operative technique or intraoperative judgement is below the expected level, with avoidable technical shortcomings.
- 0 — Unacceptable
- Technical performance is unsafe or the procedure was executed in a way that would harm the patient.
Rubric text is a brief summary of the official ABOS oral examination rubric for this domain. Scores shown here come from MyoSkel simulations only.
Anticipating, recognising, disclosing, and managing complications.
Cohort distribution on the official 0–3 scale
- 3 — Above Expected Level3 simulations · 4%
- 2 — Expected Level56 simulations · 72%
- 1 — Below Expected Level15 simulations · 19%
- 0 — Unacceptable4 simulations · 5%
Official 0–3 rubric for this domain
- 3 — Above Expected Level
- Anticipation, recognition, and management of complications exceed the expected level, including timely escalation and disclosure.
- 2 — Expected Level
- Complications are recognised and managed at the expected level, with appropriate follow-up.
- 1 — Below Expected Level
- Recognition or management of complications is below the expected level, with delayed or incomplete response.
- 0 — Unacceptable
- Complications are unrecognised, concealed, or managed in a way that compounds patient harm.
Rubric text is a brief summary of the official ABOS oral examination rubric for this domain. Scores shown here come from MyoSkel simulations only.
The results achieved, and honest appraisal of them against what was expected.
Cohort distribution on the official 0–3 scale
- 3 — Above Expected Level10 simulations · 9%
- 2 — Expected Level91 simulations · 81%
- 1 — Below Expected Level12 simulations · 11%
- 0 — Unacceptable0 simulations · 0%
Official 0–3 rubric for this domain
- 3 — Above Expected Level
- Outcomes exceed the expected level and are appraised critically against the goals set for the case.
- 2 — Expected Level
- Outcomes are at the expected level for the diagnosis, procedure, and patient.
- 1 — Below Expected Level
- Outcomes are below the expected level, or shortfalls are not recognised as such.
- 0 — Unacceptable
- Outcomes reflect avoidable harm, or poor results are misrepresented.
Rubric text is a brief summary of the official ABOS oral examination rubric for this domain. Scores shown here come from MyoSkel simulations only.
Consent, honesty, patient-centred conduct, and professional accountability.
Cohort distribution on the official 0–3 scale
- 3 — Above Expected Level95 simulations · 84%
- 2 — Expected Level18 simulations · 16%
- 1 — Below Expected Level0 simulations · 0%
- 0 — Unacceptable0 simulations · 0%
Official 0–3 rubric for this domain
- 3 — Above Expected Level
- Ethical reasoning, informed consent, candour, and professional accountability exceed the expected level.
- 2 — Expected Level
- Consent, honesty with patients and colleagues, and professional conduct are at the expected level.
- 1 — Below Expected Level
- Ethical or professional conduct is below the expected level, with lapses in consent, candour, or accountability.
- 0 — Unacceptable
- Conduct breaches core ethical or professional obligations to the patient.
Rubric text is a brief summary of the official ABOS oral examination rubric for this domain. Scores shown here come from MyoSkel simulations only.
Bringing anatomy, biomechanics, pathology, and the evidence base to bear on the case.
Cohort distribution on the official 0–3 scale
- 3 — Above Expected Level25 simulations · 22%
- 2 — Expected Level87 simulations · 77%
- 1 — Below Expected Level1 simulation · 1%
- 0 — Unacceptable0 simulations · 0%
Official 0–3 rubric for this domain
- 3 — Above Expected Level
- Application of anatomy, biomechanics, pathology, and current evidence to the case exceeds the expected level.
- 2 — Expected Level
- Relevant knowledge is applied accurately to the case at the expected level.
- 1 — Below Expected Level
- Application of relevant knowledge is below the expected level, with gaps that affect the management discussion.
- 0 — Unacceptable
- Knowledge applied to the case is absent or incorrect to a degree incompatible with safe practice.
Rubric text is a brief summary of the official ABOS oral examination rubric for this domain. Scores shown here come from MyoSkel simulations only.
The four scale points — Above Expected Level, Expected Level, Below Expected Level, Unacceptable — are the official ABOS wording. MyoSkel AI readiness metrics and simulations are educational analytics and are not official ABOS examination results. MyoSkel is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or certified by the ABOS.
CCC Review Queue
MyoSkel analyticsResidents whose records met one of MyoSkel’s configurable review conditions this cycle. Every row names the condition, the specific finding in the assessment record, the framework it sits against, and a suggested next step. These are prompts for the committee to look at the evidence — they are not determinations, and MyoSkel does not make them.
Priority
| Resident | PGY | Review reason | Relevant framework | Evidence status | Suggested next action | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample Resident D | PGY-1 | Missing subcompetency coverageCondition: any relevant subcompetency with zero linked evidence items | ACGME Milestones · evidence base | No linked evidence for PC6, SBP3 | Assign an assessment that covers the uncovered subcompetency and link the record to it. | Review first |
| Sample Resident D | PGY-1 | Insufficient assessment evidenceCondition: fewer than 75% of relevant subcompetencies with at least 3 linked assessment items drawn from at least 2 different evidence types | ACGME Milestones · evidence base | 6 of 19 relevant subcompetencies carry adequate evidence (32%) | Schedule observations and assessments against the thinnest subcompetencies before the next committee meeting. | Review first |
| Sample Resident D | PGY-1 | Major board-readiness knowledge gapCondition: MyoSkel readiness below 55% in a category weighted 10% or more | ABOS Part I blueprint · MyoSkel readiness | Surgery of the Hand: 52% MyoSkel readiness, official blueprint weight 10.5% | Add a focused study block for that category and re-assess at the next review. | Review first |
| Sample Resident E | PGY-1 | Missing subcompetency coverageCondition: any relevant subcompetency with zero linked evidence items | ACGME Milestones · evidence base | No linked evidence for PROF3, ICS3 | Assign an assessment that covers the uncovered subcompetency and link the record to it. | Review first |
| Sample Resident E | PGY-1 | Insufficient assessment evidenceCondition: fewer than 75% of relevant subcompetencies with at least 3 linked assessment items drawn from at least 2 different evidence types | ACGME Milestones · evidence base | 14 of 20 relevant subcompetencies carry adequate evidence (70%) | Schedule observations and assessments against the thinnest subcompetencies before the next committee meeting. | Review first |
| Sample Resident E | PGY-1 | Recurrent low oral-case simulation domainCondition: mean below 1.5 / 3 across 3 or more simulations | ABOS oral case framework · MyoSkel simulations | Surgical Complications: mean 1.3 / 3 across 3 simulations | Run further simulations led by that domain and review the official rubric wording for it together. | Review first |
| Sample Resident H | PGY-3 | Persistent declineCondition: lower at each of the last two review periods | ACGME Milestones · reviewed levels | PBLI2: Level 3 → Level 2.5 → Level 2 across the last three periods | Review the contributing assessments across all three periods with the resident's advisor. | Review first |
| Sample Resident K | PGY-5 | Overdue faculty reviewCondition: no recorded faculty review in 210 days | Program review schedule | Last recorded faculty review 2025-06-13 — 217 days | Book the outstanding faculty review and record the outcome against the current period. | Review first |
| Sample Resident F | PGY-2 | Large disagreement between assessorsCondition: 1.5 reporting positions or more, with 3 or more assessors | ACGME Milestones · assessor agreement | PC3: 4 assessors, recorded between Level 2 and Level 4 | Bring the contributing assessments to the committee and reconcile against the official descriptors for that subcompetency. | Review this cycle |
| Sample Resident G | PGY-2 | Recurrent low oral-case simulation domainCondition: mean below 1.5 / 3 across 3 or more simulations | ABOS oral case framework · MyoSkel simulations | Surgical Complications: mean 0.4 / 3 across 7 simulations | Run further simulations led by that domain and review the official rubric wording for it together. | Review this cycle |
| Sample Resident I | PGY-3 | Major board-readiness knowledge gapCondition: MyoSkel readiness below 55% in a category weighted 10% or more | ABOS Part I blueprint · MyoSkel readiness | Pediatrics: 53% MyoSkel readiness, official blueprint weight 12% | Add a focused study block for that category and re-assess at the next review. | Review this cycle |
These are MyoSkel conditions a program configures. They are not standards published by the ACGME, the ABOS, or anyone else, and meeting one says something about the assessment record — not about the resident.
- Insufficient assessment evidence2 this cycle
- Fewer than the configured share of this resident's relevant subcompetencies carry enough linked evidence for the committee to review against.Configured threshold: fewer than 75% of relevant subcompetencies with at least 3 linked assessment items drawn from at least 2 different evidence types · ACGME Milestones · evidence baseSuggested next action: Schedule observations and assessments against the thinnest subcompetencies before the next committee meeting.
- Missing subcompetency coverage2 this cycle
- A relevant subcompetency has no linked assessment evidence at all, so there is nothing recorded for the committee to read against it.Configured threshold: any relevant subcompetency with zero linked evidence items · ACGME Milestones · evidence baseSuggested next action: Assign an assessment that covers the uncovered subcompetency and link the record to it.
- Large disagreement between assessors1 this cycle
- Assessors recorded reporting positions far apart on the same subcompetency. The gap is a prompt to read the evidence together, not a conclusion about the resident.Configured threshold: 1.5 reporting positions or more, with 3 or more assessors · ACGME Milestones · assessor agreementSuggested next action: Bring the contributing assessments to the committee and reconcile against the official descriptors for that subcompetency.
- Persistent decline1 this cycle
- The reviewed position on a subcompetency was lower at each of the last two review periods. MyoSkel reports the direction only; what it means is a committee question.Configured threshold: lower at each of the last two review periods · ACGME Milestones · reviewed levelsSuggested next action: Review the contributing assessments across all three periods with the resident's advisor.
- Recurrent low oral-case simulation domain2 this cycle
- One official oral-framework domain sits low across repeated MyoSkel simulations. These are teaching simulations, not ABOS examination results.Configured threshold: mean below 1.5 / 3 across 3 or more simulations · ABOS oral case framework · MyoSkel simulationsSuggested next action: Run further simulations led by that domain and review the official rubric wording for it together.
- Major board-readiness knowledge gap2 this cycle
- A heavily weighted ABOS Part I blueprint category sits low on MyoSkel readiness. Readiness is a MyoSkel educational metric, not an ABOS score.Configured threshold: MyoSkel readiness below 55% in a category weighted 10% or more · ABOS Part I blueprint · MyoSkel readinessSuggested next action: Add a focused study block for that category and re-assess at the next review.
- Overdue faculty review1 this cycle
- No faculty review has been recorded for this resident within the configured interval.Configured threshold: no recorded faculty review in 210 days · Program review scheduleSuggested next action: Book the outstanding faculty review and record the outcome against the current period.
Evidence & Assessment Feed
MyoSkel analyticsEvery kind of assessment evidence the platform records, across 12 residents — 356 records in the window since 2024–2025 · Year-End Review. Volume and direction describe the assessment stream; whether it is enough to review against is a separate judgement, shown alongside.
| Evidence type | Volume | Share of records | Residents contributing | Change | Enough to review against |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CasesLogged operative and clinic cases linked to subcompetencies. | 56 | 10 of 12 | up 44 records vs. the previous review window | Sufficient for review | |
| Direct ObservationsObserved performance recorded by supervising faculty. | 38 | 11 of 12 | up 12 records vs. the previous review window | Developing | |
| Case-Based AssessmentsStructured discussion of a specific case, recorded against a subcompetency. | 28 | 6 of 12 | up 9 records vs. the previous review window | Developing | |
| SimulationsMyoSkel case simulations run against the ABOS oral framework. | 78 | 12 of 12 | up 43 records vs. the previous review window | Sufficient for review | |
| Faculty AssessmentsStructured assessments completed by faculty. | 41 | 12 of 12 | up 15 records vs. the previous review window | Developing | |
| Multisource FeedbackFeedback gathered from several roles around the resident, collated into one record. | 14 | 6 of 12 | up 5 records vs. the previous review window | Limited | |
| FeedbackNarrative feedback captured against a subcompetency. | 44 | 11 of 12 | up 24 records vs. the previous review window | Developing | |
| QI / EBPQuality improvement and evidence-based practice activity records. | 39 | 12 of 12 | up 20 records vs. the previous review window | Developing | |
| Evidence-Based PracticeEvidence appraisal and literature-to-practice activity recorded on its own. | 18 | 6 of 12 | up 12 records vs. the previous review window | Limited |
Evidence volume is not competence
A larger number of records does not make a resident more competent, and a smaller number does not make one less so. What this panel measures is whether the committee has enough, and enough different kinds, of assessment evidence to make its own judgement. Formal determinations remain a faculty and Clinical Competency Committee function.
About the MyoSkel evidence sufficiency labels
- Sufficient for review
- MyoSkel educational indicator — enough linked evidence to discuss this subcompetency in review.
- Developing
- MyoSkel educational indicator — some linked evidence; more would strengthen the picture.
- Limited
- MyoSkel educational indicator — little linked evidence so far for this subcompetency.