The last time your institution chose a GME management platform, the demo probably worked. The contract got signed. The spreadsheets remained. That is not a software failure so much as a diligence failure: the team compared feature lists instead of asking whether the records that actually run a residency would survive the next Accreditation Data System (ADS) Annual Update, the next Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) meeting, and the next coordinator who leaves.
This guide is the operational list for designated institutional officials (DIOs), program directors, and coordinators who are evaluating a platform. It is not a vendor scorecard, and it is not twenty-four questions padded to match an old brochure title. Each heading is a question your GME committee or program meeting can put a name on. The first two sentences under it are the direct answer. A downloadable checklist (branded Excel, with a plain-CSV alternative) is linked at the end as a meeting handoff, not as the system of record.
Verified September 1, 2026 against ACGME Common Program Requirements and the June 22 and July 6 e-communications. Sources at the end.
| Owner | Clock | Artifact | Failure if skipped |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program coordinator plus PD | Late June Unconfirmed rollover | Confirmed roster | The year starts as archaeology |
| ADS update owner | Program's ADS Important Dates window (July-September 2026 nationally) | Submitted Annual Update from living records | National window mistaken for the date that binds you |
| DIO plus institutional coordinator | Before the ADS date, with room to return | Update in front of the DIO | Courtesy PDF the night before the window closes |
| Program director plus CCC chair | At least semi-annually; meet prior to semi-annual evaluations | All resident evaluations in one packet the committee can open | Scavenger hunt; CCC synthesizes without the file |
| Program director plus Program Evaluation Committee | Annual; action plan distributed and submitted to the DIO | APE from current records | June rebuild of last year's tables |
| Coordinator plus PD (hours); institutional IT plus DIO (export) | 80-hour week averaged over four weeks; export before you sign | Hours against the schedule that ran; export with owners and dates | Gaps found when someone asks; mystery folder after a coordinator leaves |
How to use these questions
Ask them of your own operation first. A vendor conversation that starts with "can you do ACGME" is a feature tour. A conversation that starts with "show me last year's Annual Update, this CCC's evaluation packet, and this year's Annual Program Evaluation, in the system, with the people who own them" is diligence.
Put a name next to each question on the checklist. If the name is "whoever ran it last time," you do not have an owner. You have a folder.
A 30-second check. Open this program's ADS Important Dates view. Write the Annual Update date down. If you cannot name that date without asking the coordinator who "just knows," that is the first row on the checklist, and it is due this week, not in visit year.
If you need the ACGME year itself (the June rollover, the Annual Update window, the buffer before the date in ADS), use the companion Evidence article Managing ACGME Accreditation. If you are already comparing named platforms, use the comparison guide rather than this list.
Which edition of the Common Program Requirements is our tracking built on?
The edition that is in force now, pulled from acgme.org, not the copy saved during the last review. As of September 1, 2026, the ACGME Common Program Requirements page listed four posted versions (Residency, Fellowship, One-Year Fellowship, and Post-Doctoral Education Program), each with Program Requirements and FAQs effective July 1, 2026.
Specialty Program Requirements move on their own cycle. So do the Institutional Requirements, which the Institutional Requirements landing page posted as effective July 1, 2026. If your compliance tracking was built on a prior edition, the first task is a diff, not a demo. Confirm with your Review Committee contact which edition governs you when the answer is not explicit.
Are we still working from a standalone FAQ PDF that ACGME already folded into the requirements?
You should not be. The July 6, 2026 e-communication states that standalone FAQ documents have been removed from the ACGME website, and that relevant FAQs have been integrated into an appendix in Common Program, specialty and subspecialty Program, Institutional, and Recognition Requirement documents.
A tracker that still cites a saved FAQ PDF will silently drift. Ask any vendor whether its "ACGME content" is a living map to the current PDF, or a snapshot from the year the implementation was sold.
After the June academic-year rollover, is our roster still Unconfirmed?
If nobody has updated it, yes. Per the ACGME's June 22, 2026 e-communication, ACGME Cloud, ADS, and the Case Log System converted to Academic Year 2026-2027 over the June 26-27 weekend. After that conversion, every resident and fellow had an Unconfirmed status that programs need to update.
Nothing looks broken on the program's side of the screen. From the accreditor's side, the roster became a question. Ask a vendor to show how last year's confirmed roster becomes this year's worklist, with a named owner, without a spreadsheet reconstruction in August.
What date is in our ADS Important Dates view?
The date that binds this program, not the national collection window. Per the ACGME's July 6, 2026 e-communication, the Academic Year 2026-2027 Annual Update is collected between July and September 2026, each program gets its own timeframe, and an initial notification email at the start of the reporting window lists the requirements and their deadlines. The June 22 e-communication stated that those timeframes would appear in the ADS Important Dates column by July 1.
| Body | Clock | What it is not |
|---|---|---|
| June academic-year rollover | ACGME Cloud, ADS, and the Case Log System converted to Academic Year 2026-2027 over the June 26-27 weekend. After conversion, every resident and fellow had an Unconfirmed status. | A broken screen. Nothing looks broken on the program's side. |
| ADS Annual Update | Collected July through September 2026 nationally. The date that binds you is in this program's ADS Important Dates view. Those timeframes would appear in the ADS Important Dates column by July 1. | The national window treated as your deadline. |
| DIO review | This guide recommends treating the DIO's review as a real step with time attached, so the program's internal deadline sits earlier than the date in ADS. | A courtesy PDF the night before ADS closes. |
The collection window is national. The date that binds your program is the one in its ADS Important Dates view. Confirm the local mechanics with your GME office. The companion operating guide covers the buffer.
Does the DIO oversee each program's Annual Update from current records?
The DIO is supposed to oversee the submissions, not discover them after ADS closes. The Institutional Requirements effective July 1, 2026 require the Sponsoring Institution to identify a DIO who, in collaboration with a Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC), has authority and responsibility for oversight of each ACGME-accredited program. The same document requires that the DIO oversee submissions of the Annual Update for each program and the Sponsoring Institution to the ACGME.
If the only way the DIO sees a program's update is a PDF the night before the window closes, you do not have oversight. You have a courtesy copy. Ask a vendor to show a DIO a sponsored-program worklist (status, owner, what is still missing) without impersonating a coordinator.
Who owns the Annual Update inside the program, not as a one-person form?
A named program director plus the coordinator who drives the system, with data owners for roster, evaluations, scholarly activity, and whatever else this year's notification email lists. If the Annual Update is "the coordinator's August," it will be archaeology every year.
Book the program director's hours when the window opens, not when it closes. Ask a vendor to show assignment, due dates, and status as a living list, not a slide titled year-end reporting.
Goals and Outcomes
Needs your attention
Showing top 2 by due dateRequired evidence not linked
Program director · Sep 5, 2026
Unanswered required questions
Unassigned owner · Sep 8, 2026
AY 2026-2027 Annual Program Evaluation
Complete outcomes, evidence, metrics, requests, and action planning before submitting the packet for review.
Improvement goals
8
Open blockers
2
Open actions
5
Overdue actions
1
Demonstration data. The packet is the working file for the year: named artifacts, owners, dates. Not ADS filing, and not an IRIS export.
The packet is the working file for the year: named artifacts, owners, and dates. It is not a visit-year folder sitting next to the system of record.
Can we produce this year's Annual Program Evaluation from current records?
Yes, from the records you kept while you ran the year, or no, only after a special export project. There is no useful middle. The Residency Common Program Requirements effective July 1, 2026 require the program director to appoint a Program Evaluation Committee to conduct and document the Annual Program Evaluation as part of continuous improvement.
| Body | Clock | What it is not |
|---|---|---|
| Annual Program Evaluation | The program director appoints a Program Evaluation Committee to conduct and document the Annual Program Evaluation as part of continuous improvement. | A narrative generated from memory in June. |
| Action plan | The Annual Program Evaluation, including the action plan, must be distributed to and discussed with the residents and the members of the teaching faculty, and be submitted to the DIO. | A file that never left the coordinator's drive. |
| Program Self-Study (5.5.h) | Enforcement of Common Program Requirement 5.5.h (the program must complete a Self-Study and submit it to the DIO) is suspended pending the outcome of the major revision of the Common Program Requirements. Enforcement of 5.5.f is suspended on the same basis. | The Sponsoring Institution Self-Study that precedes a 10-Year Accreditation Site Visit. |
The committee's job is not to generate a narrative from memory. It is to review goals, progress, outcomes, and the operating environment, using (among other things) prior Annual Program Evaluations, aggregate evaluations of the program, and other relevant data. If the APE only exists because someone rebuilt last year's tables in June, you are buying a project, not a platform.
Is anyone still budgeting a program Self-Study as if requirement 5.5.h were being enforced?
They should stop until they re-check acgme.org. In the Residency Common Program Requirements PDF effective July 1, 2026, enforcement of Common Program Requirement 5.5.h (the program must complete a Self-Study and submit it to the DIO) is suspended pending the outcome of the major revision of the Common Program Requirements. Enforcement of 5.5.f is suspended on the same basis.
That is not the same document as the Sponsoring Institution Self-Study that precedes a 10-Year Accreditation Site Visit. The Site Visit FAQ page still describes that institutional process. Confirm both, every academic year, before anyone budgets a packet. A vendor that still sells "self-study reports" as if 5.5.h were in force is selling last year's brochure.
When the CCC meets, can members review all resident evaluations without a scavenger hunt?
They can if the evaluations already live in one place the committee can open. They cannot if each member arrives with a personal folder. The Residency Common Program Requirements effective July 1, 2026 require the program director to appoint a Clinical Competency Committee, require that committee to review all resident evaluations at least semi-annually, and require it to determine each resident's progress on the specialty-specific Milestones.
| Body | Clock | What it is not |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation documented | Evaluation be documented at the completion of the assignment. For block rotations of greater than three months, evaluation must be documented at least every three months. Longitudinal experiences must be evaluated at least every three months and at completion. | A year-end batch, or a form issued weeks after the learner left. |
| CCC review | The committee must meet prior to the residents' semi-annual evaluations and advise the program director regarding each resident's progress. The program must provide the objective performance evaluation (Competencies and specialty-specific Milestones, from multiple evaluators) to the CCC for that synthesis. | A scavenger hunt the morning of the meeting. |
| Milestones in ADS | The June 22, 2026 e-communication treated Milestones reporting as its own scheduled window (that year-end window closed June 26, 2026) with submissions via ADS. | CCC minutes in a Word folder typed into a different spreadsheet. |
The diligence question is practical. Pull last CCC's packet. Can a new committee member find every evaluation the requirement says the committee must review, without emailing the coordinator? If not, a dashboard will not invent that packet.
Clinical Competency Committee
Review who needs discussion, capture notes, then freeze the period.
Academic period
Not finalized
Showing 4 of 4
Medium flags hidden
Show medium flagsDemonstration data. A learner flagged for missing evaluations is the packet problem. The committee either has the file, or it does not.
A learner row flagged for missing evaluations is the packet problem in one line. The committee either has the file, or it does not.
Are evaluations documented at the end of the assignment that actually ran?
They have to be, or the CCC is reviewing a sample of whoever remembered to complete a form. The Residency Common Program Requirements effective July 1, 2026 require that evaluation be documented at the completion of the assignment. For block rotations of greater than three months, evaluation must be documented at least every three months.
Automatic assignment from a schedule is useful only if the schedule is the same record the evaluation used. If those are two systems, you have not automated anything. You have added a reconciliation job. Ask the vendor to start from last block's actual assignments, not from a demo rotation named "Block 1."
Do CCC Milestone judgments and ADS Milestone submissions come from the same record?
They should. The CCC determines each resident's progress on the specialty-specific Milestones. Those judgments are what ADS is for. The June 22, 2026 e-communication treated Milestones reporting as its own scheduled window (that year-end window closed June 26, 2026) with submissions via ADS.
If CCC minutes live in a Word folder and ADS gets typed from a different spreadsheet, you will spend the window reconciling two stories. Ask a vendor to walk from one resident's committee judgment to the submission, with the evaluation evidence still attached, after the coordinator who entered last year's numbers has left.
Are clinical and educational work hours logged against the schedule that actually ran?
If they are not, you will discover the gaps when someone asks for the record, not while you can still fix the log. The Residency Common Program Requirements effective July 1, 2026 use the terms "clinical experience and education," "clinical and educational work," and "clinical and educational work hours" in place of "duty hours."
| Body | Clock | What it is not |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly maximum | Clinical and educational work hours must be limited to no more than 80 hours per week, averaged over a four-week period, including all in-house clinical and educational activities, clinical work done from home, and all moonlighting. | A demo "duty hour alert" against a toy roster. |
| Same-record log | Hours logged against last block's real assignments, with a named attester when the log and the schedule disagree. | Two systems that get reconciled only when someone asks. |
| Mid-block site change | Count how many other systems have to be updated by hand. This guide recommends a simple test: change a site and an assignment for one masked resident in the demo environment, then watch what else moves. | Calling a fan-out through scheduler, evaluation assignment, hours log, ADS, and finance "integration." |
Do not let a vendor demo "duty hour alerts" against a toy roster. Ask them to show completeness and exceptions against last block's real assignments, and to show who attests when the log and the schedule disagree.
If a site visit is announced, can we update ADS from living records rather than reconstructing them?
You can if ADS is a view of records you already keep. You cannot if the announcement letter is the starting gun for a data archaeology project. The Site Visit FAQ page states that the purpose of an accreditation or recognition site visit is collection and aggregation of relevant data into a Site Visit Report used by Review and Recognition Committees; Accreditation Field Representatives are not the decision makers.
All site visits require information collected via ADS, and Sponsoring Institutions and programs should make sure all data in ADS is updated prior to the due date in the Site Visit Announcement letter. Programs with Continued Accreditation are subject to annual review of data submitted as part of the ADS Annual Update process, and a Review Committee may request a site visit. The ACGME also selects programs on Continued Accreditation for site visits through a random sampling process; programs are eligible if they have not had a site visit in nine years or more.
The approximate date in ADS is a target, not the visit. Minimum notice is approximately 30 days, and can be less. This guide's own test is simple: if you cannot update ADS from the same records that fed the last Annual Update and the last CCC, you are not visit-ready. You are visit-scrambling. Confirm current visit types and logistics on the Site Visit page; this article does not restate interview choreography.
When a rotation or site changes mid-block, how many other systems have to be updated by hand?
Count them, in a real meeting, with the people who do the typing. One change that fans out through the scheduler, the evaluation assignment, the hours log, ADS, and the file finance will eventually need is not "integration." It is a defect you will rediscover every block.
This guide recommends a simple test: change a site and an assignment for one masked resident in the demo environment, then watch what else moves. If the vendor will not do that test, they already know the answer.
Who owns the IRIS file, and does it start from the same schedule the program actually ran?
Someone has to own it by name, and it has to start from the rotations and sites that actually happened, or cost-report season becomes a reconstruction. This is this guide's own operational question. It is not an ACGME requirement, and this page does not cite federal cost-report rules or invent reimbursement figures.
Ask who, today, can explain how last block's assignments became the file finance used. If the answer is "we export from the scheduler and then fix it in Excel," write that down before anyone demos an IRIS button. A platform conversation that cannot point at the schedule-to-file path, as your institution actually runs it, is not yet a finance conversation.
Will a vendor walk those records with our data, not a demo script?
Yes, or you are not in diligence yet. A platform that cannot load one program's roster, last block's evaluations, and last year's Annual Update source files into a working session is asking you to buy a story.
Bring one program to the conversation. Ask them to open a CCC packet far enough that a missing evaluation is visible. Ask them to open the Annual Update worklist and show what is still Unconfirmed. If the room fills with roadmap language, stop. The companion ACGME operating guide and the comparison guide exists so this list does not have to become a vendor teardown.
What happens to our evaluation history, Milestone records, and accreditation artifacts if we leave?
You get an export your next system can read, with the owners and dates still attached, or you do not. Find out which before you sign. Accreditation evidence that only exists inside a vendor's unique format becomes the next coordinator's mystery folder the day the contract ends.
Ask for the export formats in writing: evaluations, Milestone history, and the accreditation artifact set. Then have someone in your shop, not the vendor, open the files. This guide's own rule is that a platform you cannot leave is not an operating record. It is a hostage.
The checklist
Download the GME platform diligence checklist (Excel) or the plain CSV if you would rather import it into Google Sheets or your own tracker. Every question above is a row, with columns for the suggested owner, what "good" looks like, status, and notes. Put real names in the owner column at your next GME or program meeting, before the next vendor call.
The workbook is a handoff into a standing process, not the system of record. If the ADS file, the CCC packet, and the APE already live in one place, the named owners and dates belong there.
Where the packet and the evaluations stay together
Named owners run the ADS Annual Update, the CCC packet, and the APE as a standing process in the platform: people first, then a written protocol, then records that survive the coordinator who leaves.
The checklist above is how you walk that process in. Several of the questions are records problems. Medtrics is one such platform. Medtrics keeps every accreditation artifact in one access-controlled repository, categorized, with expiration alerts, and links each artifact as evidence to the standard it supports. Enrollment, evaluations, and outcomes live in one system of record with a governed KPI layer and exportable analytics. See GME Leaders for how the same year sits as a standing process.
None of this replaces the operating model. The calendar, the owners, and the DIO's sponsorship still do the work. A platform makes that boring structure durable when people leave.
Sources and status
This guide was verified on September 1, 2026 against the following sources. After publication, the current documents on acgme.org remain the only authoritative statement of any requirement.
- ACGME Common Program Requirements page: four posted versions (Residency, Fellowship, One-Year Fellowship, and Post-Doctoral Education Program), each with Program Requirements and FAQs effective July 1, 2026. acgme.org/what-we-do/accreditation/common-program-requirements
- ACGME Common Program Requirements (Residency) including FAQs, effective July 1, 2026: CCC, evaluation timing, Annual Program Evaluation, clinical and educational work hours, and the suspended enforcement of 5.5.f and 5.5.h. CPR Residency PDF
- ACGME Institutional Requirements and Application page: Institutional Requirements and FAQs effective July 1, 2026. acgme.org/programs-and-institutions/institutions/institutional-requirements-and-application
- ACGME Institutional Requirements including FAQs, effective July 1, 2026: DIO identification, GMEC collaboration, DIO oversight of Annual Update submissions. Institutional Requirements PDF
- ACGME e-communication, June 22, 2026: academic-year conversion over the June 26-27 weekend; after conversion, all residents and fellows have Unconfirmed status; Annual Update timeframes posted to the ADS Important Dates view by July 1; Milestones year-end reporting window closing June 26, 2026. June 22, 2026 e-communication
- ACGME e-communication, July 6, 2026: Academic Year 2026-2027 Annual Update collected July through September 2026; standalone FAQ documents removed and FAQs integrated into requirements PDFs. July 6, 2026 e-communication
- ACGME Site Visit page: Field Representatives collect data for a Site Visit Report used by Review Committees; ADS must be updated before the visit; annual review of Annual Update data may prompt a visit; random sampling for programs without a site visit in nine years or more. acgme.org/programs-and-institutions/programs/site-visit
ACGME is named descriptively. This article is an independent buyer's guide from Medtrics, not ACGME guidance, and nothing here promises any accreditation outcome. The work does that, or nothing does.