Maintenance Of Certification Examination Research Articles

Performance on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation certifying examinations: Rural and urban physicians.

Over 60 million people in the United States live in a rural community making up approximately 20% of the population. Data are minimal about the physiatrists who serve this rural population, their performance on certification examinations and how the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPM&R) serves their ongoing educational, assessment, and practice needs. To compare the performance of rural and urban physicians on the Part I, Part II, and maintenance of certification (MOC) examinations along with subspecialty preference and continuance of primary certification. Retrospective cross-sectional study. Board-eligible PM&R physicians and certified diplomates of the ABPM&R. Physicians who participated in an initial certification or maintenance of certification examination with the ABPM&R between 2010 and 2019. Comparisons of physician pass rates, mean scaled scores (aggregates), and program pass rates on ABPM&R certifying examinations were completed. Cross-reference to national database and ABPM&R practice site zip codes provided sociogeographic linkage. Not applicable MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician mean scaled scores, pass rates, subspecialty preferences, and primary certification status. There were no meaningful differences in performance on the ABPM&R Part I, II, and MOC examinations between rural and urban physiatrists. Most common subspecialty is the pain medicine certification whose diplomates most frequently drop their primary certification. Pediatric rehabilitation medicine certification is rare in rural localities and a health care disparity. The study found no meaningful differences in the performance of rural and urban physicians on the ABPM&R certifying examinations.

Twelve tips on guiding preparation for both high-stakes exams and long-term learning

High-stakes exams including admissions, licensing, and maintenance of certification examinations are commonplace in health professions education. Although exam scores and performance can often serve gate-keeping purposes, the broader goal of health professions education is to foster deep, self-directed, meaningful, motivated learning. Establishing strong support structures that emphasize deep learning and understanding rather than exam scores can be beneficial to preparing learners who have the knowledge base to be excellent practitioners. This article offers guidance that can be used by academic support centres, medical educators, learning specialists, and faculty advisors, or even test-takers, to help learners to balance score achievement and knowledge development, while simultaneously cultivating more efficient and motivated studying and increasingly self-regulated learning. This series of tips details considerations for building academic success supports, fostering a growth mindset, planning efficient and effective studying efforts, utilizing test-enhanced learning strategies, exam-taking skills practice, and other support structures that can help strengthen learning experiences overall.

Evaluation of Longitudinal Assessment for Use in Maintenance of Certification.

The aim of the study was to evaluate a longitudinal assessment program for physical medicine and rehabilitation (LA-PM&R) as a replacement for the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation maintenance of certification examination. In this quality improvement study, randomly selected American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation diplomates were invited to participate in the LA-PM&R. Participants' maintenance of certification scaled scores were compared with LA-PM&R nonparticipants. We examined the association between LA-PM&R scores and maintenance of certification scaled scores and performance on clone items placed on both examinations. There were 2222 American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation diplomates eligible to take the maintenance of certification examination from February 2018 to February 2019. Invitations were sent to 1050 randomly selected diplomates, of whom 448 initially agreed. Three hundred eighteen individuals completed more than two quarters of LA-PM&R participation and took the maintenance of certification examination. Two hundred sixty-six diplomates took the maintenance of certification examination in the same period who did not participate in LA-PM&R. The LA-PM&R group scored higher on the maintenance of certification examination than the control group (P < 0.05). Performance on the two examinations were highly correlated, r = .50, P < 0.0001. On clone items, LA-PM&R participants had 74% correct on the LA-PM&R but 86% correct on the maintenance of certification examination (P < 0.01). The LA-PM&R program leads to better learning and retention of information than the 10-yr maintenance of certification examination.

Association of Regional Practice Environment Intensity and the Ability of Internists to Practice High-Value Care After Residency

Use of health care services and physician practice patterns have been shown to vary widely across the United States. Although practice patterns-in particular, physicians' ability to provide high-quality, high-value care-develop during training, the association of a physician's regional practice environment with that ability is less well understood. To examine the association between health care intensity in the region where physicians practice and their ability to practice high-value care, specifically for physicians whose practice environment changed due to relocation after residency. This cohort study included a national sample of 3896 internal medicine physicians who took the 2002 American Board of Internal Medicine initial certification examination followed approximately 1 decade (April 21, 2011, to May 7, 2015) later by the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) examination. At the time of the MOC examination, 2714 of these internists were practicing in a new region. Data were analyzed from March 6, 2016, to May 21, 2018. Intensity of care in the Dartmouth Atlas hospital referral region (HRR), measured by per-enrollee end-of-life physician visits (primary) and current practice type (secondary). The outcome, a physician's ability to practice high-value care, was assessed using the Appropriately Conservative Management (ACM) score on the MOC examination, measuring performance across all questions for which the correct answer was the most conservative option. The exposure, regional health care intensity, was measured as per-enrollee end-of-life physician visits in the Dartmouth Atlas HRR of the physician's practice. Among the 3860 participating internists included in the analysis (2030 men [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 45.6 [4.5] years), those who moved to regions in the quintile of highest health care intensity had an ACM score 0.22 SD lower (95% CI, -0.32 to -0.12) than internists who moved to regions in the quintile of lowest intensity, controlling for postresidency ACM scores. This difference reflected scoring in the 44th compared with the 53rd percentile of all examinees. This association was mildly attenuated (0.18 SD less; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.09) after adjustment for physician and practice characteristics. This study found that practice patterns of internists who relocate after residency training appear to migrate toward norms of the new region. The demands of practicing in high-intensity regions may erode the ability to practice high-value conservative care.

Incorporating Physician Input Into a Maintenance of Certification Examination: A Content Validity Tool.

As part of the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM's) continuing effort to update its Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program, a content validity tool was used to conduct structured reviews of MOC exam blueprints (i.e., test specification tables) by the physician community. Results from the Cardiovascular Disease MOC blueprint review are presented to illustrate the process ABIM conducted for several internal medicine disciplines. Ratings of topic frequency and importance were collected from cardiologists in 2016 using a three-point scale (low, medium, high). The web-based survey instrument presented 188 blueprint topic descriptions, each combined with five patient-related tasks (e.g., diagnosis, treatment). Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were employed. Responses from 441 review participants were analyzed. Frequency and importance ratings were aggregated as a composite statistic representing clinical relevance, and exam assembly criteria were modified to select questions, or items, addressing clinically relevant content only. Specifically, ≥ 88% of exam items now address high-importance topics, including ≤ 15% on topics that are also low frequency; and ≤ 12% of exam items now address medium-importance topics, including ≤ 3% on topics that are also low frequency. The updated blueprint has been published for test takers and provides enhanced information on content that would and would not be tested in subsequent examinations. It is linked to more detailed feedback that examinees receive on items answered incorrectly. The blueprint review garnered valuable feedback from the physician community and provided new evidence for the content validity of the Cardiovascular Disease MOC exam.

American Board of Thoracic Surgery 10-Year Maintenance of Certification Exam Improves and Validates Knowledge Acquisition

Previous "high-stakes" examinations by the American Board of Thoracic Surgery (ABTS) required remote testing, were noneducational, and were not tailored to individual practices. Given the ABTS mission of public safety and diplomate education, the ABTS Maintenance of Certification (MOC) examination was revised in 2015 to improve the educational experience and validate knowledge acquired. The ABTS-MOC Committee developed a web-based, secure examination tailored to the specialty-specific practice profile (cardiac, general thoracic, cardiothoracic, congenital) of the individual surgeon. After an initial answer to each question, an educational critique was reviewed before returning to the initial question and logging a second (final) response. Intraexam learning was assessed by comparing scores before and after reading the critique. Diplomate feedback was obtained. A total of 988 diplomates completed the 10-year MOC examination between 2015 and 2017. Substantive learning was demonstrated with an 18%, 17%, 20%, and 9% improvement in cardiac, general thoracic, cardiothoracic, and congenital final scores, respectively. This improvement was most notable among diplomates with the lowest initial scores. Fewer diplomates failed the new exam (<1% vs 2.3%). Diplomate postexam survey highlighted marked improvements in clinical relevance (35% vs 78%), convenience (37% vs 78%), and learning (15% vs 45%). Over 80% acknowledged educational value, and 97% preferred the new format. The new MOC process demonstrates increased knowledge acquisition through a convenient, secure, web-based practice-focused examination. This approach provides feedback, identifies baseline knowledge gaps for individual diplomates, and validates new knowledge attained.

Data Interpretation in Anesthesia: A Clinical Guide

Data Interpretation in Anesthesia: A Clinical Guide

Effects and Unforeseen Consequences of Accessing References on a Maintenance of Certification Examination: Findings From a National Study

Increasing criticism of maintenance of certification (MOC) examinations has prompted certifying boards to explore alternative assessment formats. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of allowing test takers to access reference material while completing their MOC Part III standardized examination. Item response data were obtained from 546 physicians who completed a medical subspecialty MOC examination between 2013 and 2016. To investigate whether accessing references was related to better performance, an analysis of covariance was conducted on the MOC examination scores with references (access or no access) as the between-groups factor and scores from the physicians' initial certification examination as a covariate. Descriptive analyses were conducted to investigate how the new feature of accessing references influenced time management within the test day. Physicians scored significantly higher when references were allowed (mean = 534.44, standard error = 6.83) compared with when they were not (mean = 472.75, standard error = 4.87), F(1, 543) = 60.18, P < .001, ω(2) = 0.09. However, accessing references affected pacing behavior; physicians were 13.47 times more likely to finish with less than a minute of test time remaining per section when reference material was accessible. Permitting references caused an increase in performance, but also a decrease in the perception that the test has sufficient time limits. Implications for allowing references are discussed, including physician time management, impact on the construct assessed by the test, and the importance of providing validity evidence for all test design decisions.

The American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification Examination and State Medical Board Disciplinary Actions: a Population Cohort Study.

Some have questioned whether successful performance in the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program is meaningful. The association of the ABIM Internal Medicine (IM) MOC examination with state medical board disciplinary actions is unknown. To assess risk of disciplinary actions among general internists who did and did not pass the MOC examination within 10years of initial certification. Historical population cohort study. The population of internists certified in internal medicine, but not a subspecialty, from 1990 through 2003 (n = 47,971). ABIM IM MOC examination. General internal medicine in the USA. The primary outcome measure was time to disciplinary action assessed in association with whether the physician passed the ABIM IM MOC examination within 10years of initial certification, adjusted for training, certification, demographic, and regulatory variables including state medical board Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements. The risk for discipline among physicians who did not pass the IM MOC examination within the 10year requirement window was more than double than that of those who did pass the examination (adjusted HR 2.09; 95% CI, 1.83 to 2.39). Disciplinary actions did not vary by state CME requirements (adjusted HR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.16), but declined with increasing MOC examination scores (Kendall's tau-b coefficient = - 0.98 for trend, p < 0.001). Among disciplined physicians, actions were less severe among those passing the IM MOC examination within the 10-year requirement window than among those who did not pass the examination. Passing a periodic assessment of medical knowledge is associated with decreased state medical board disciplinary actions, an important quality outcome of relevance to patients and the profession.

Performance of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine Candidates on the Subspecialty Board Certification Examination from 2003 to 2015

BackgroundPediatric rehabilitation medicine (PRM) physicians enter the field via several pathways. It is unknown whether different training pathways impact performance on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) PRM Examination and Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Examination. ObjectivesTo describe the examination performance of candidates on the ABPMR PRM Examination according to their type of training (physiatrists with a clinical PRM focus, accredited or unaccredited fellowship training, separate pediatric and physical medicine and rehabilitation residencies, or combined pediatrics/physical medicine and rehabilitation residencies) and to compare candidates’ performance on the PRM Examination with their initial ABPMR certification and MOC Examinations. DesignA retrospective cohort study. SettingAmerican Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation office. ParticipantsA total of 250 candidates taking the PRM subspecialty certification examination from 2003 to 2015. MethodsScaled scores on the PRM Examination were compared to the examinees’ initial certification scores as well as their admissibility criteria. Pass rates and scaled scores also were compared for those taking their initial PRM certification versus MOC. Main Outcome MeasurementsBoard pass rates and mean scaled scores for initial PRM Examination and MOC. ResultsThe 250 physiatrists who took the subspecialty PRM Examination had an overall first-time pass rate of 89%. There was no significant difference between first-time PRM pass rates or mean scaled scores for individuals who completed an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited fellowship versus those who did not. First time PRM pass rates were greatest among those who were also certified by the American Board of Pediatrics (100%). Performance on Parts I and II of the initial ABPMR Certification Examination significantly predicted PRM Examination scores. There was no difference in mean scaled scores for initial PRM certification versus taking the PRM Examination for MOC. ConclusionsSeveral pathways to admissibility to the PRM Examination afforded similar opportunity for diplomates to gain the knowledge necessary to pass the PRM Examination. Once certified, physicians taking the PRM Examination for MOC have a high success rate of passing again in years 7-10 of their certification cycle. Level of EvidenceIII

Reviewing the Clinical Landscape of Patient Safety in Psychiatry.

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Reviewing the Clinical LandscapeFull AccessReviewing the Clinical Landscape of Patient Safety in PsychiatryYad M. Jabbarpour, M.D.Yad M. JabbarpourSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:16 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.154S04AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Patient safety is one of the core responsibilities of a physician. The principles of not only Salus aegroti suprema lex esto, beneficence, but also primum non nocere, nonmaleficence, are two of the ethical pillars that support medical service and attention to safety. Psychiatrists have expertise in areas of patient safety, ranging from suicide risk assessment to violence risk assessment, reduction of seclusion and restraint, prevention of psychiatric misdiagnosis, and supporting a holistic biopsychosocial treatment plan, which drives appropriate, timely, evidence-based, patient-centered services. However, the systems of care in which psychiatrists serve are challenged by sentinel events: self-inflicted injuries, elopements, falls, restraint-related events, delays in treatment, medication errors, and even criminal events. In the United States, suicide is the second most frequent sentinel event reported to the Joint Commission. Psychiatric hospitals rank second in the nation as the most frequent location for reported sentinel events, followed by hospital psychiatric units. Behavioral health care settings rank sixth (1).Nearing two decades ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System (2), reported that “at least 44,000 people, and perhaps as many as 98,000 people, die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors that could have been prevented.” In March of 2001, IOM’s Crossing the Quality Chasm (3) concluded that “merely making incremental improvements in current systems of care will not suffice.” In 2016, a study by Makary and Daniel (4) suggested that medical error is the third leading cause of death in the United States. These reports have inspired the nation’s growing campaign to improve quality and safety in health care (5). However, adverse events causing morbidity and mortality continue. Not only are the patients affected, but so are family members, the community, and the clinicians providing care.Many organizations support system transformation to improve patient safety, including the IOM, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Patient Safety Foundation, The Joint Commission, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association. In recent years physicians have received more support for gaining competence in the field of patient safety. The American Board of Medical Specialties has highlighted safety standards by integrating patient safety principles into its program for maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements (5). The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology is part of this leadership drive and announced that beginning in 2016, physicians who passed a certification or MOC examination would be required to complete an approved Patient Safety Course up to three years prior to board certification or recertification or in their first continuous MOC block.Focus, as part of its mission to provide MOC review and lifelong learning in the field, offers a Safety Commentary column to provide expert commentary in the area of safety standards with a focus on those most relevant to psychiatry.Dr. Jabbarpour is assistant professor with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, and chief of staff at Catawba Hospital, Catawba, Virginia.References1 Summary Data of Sentinel Events Reviewed by the Joint Commission. The Joint Commission, March 3. 2017. https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/Summary_4Q_2016.pdfGoogle Scholar2 Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds): To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, National Academies Press, 2000Google Scholar3 Institute of Medicine: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2001Google Scholar4 Makary MA, Daniel M: Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016; 353:i2139Crossref, Google Scholar5 Standards for the ABMS program for maintenance of certification (MOC) for implementation in January 2015. Chicago, American Board of Medical Specialties, 2014. http://www.abms.org/media/1109/standards-for-the-abms-program-for-moc-final.pdfGoogle Scholar FiguresReferencesCited byDetailsCited byCorrelation of safety behavior, handover quality, and risk perception: A cross-sectional study among Chinese psychiatric nurses19 December 2022 | Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol. 13 Volume 15Issue 4 Fall 2017Pages 4s-5sTreating the Invisible Wounds of War: Focus on PTSD and TBI PDF download

325 Maintenance of Certification and the Aging Neurosurgeon

INTRODUCTION: Assuring clinical competence in the aging neurosurgeon is of paramount importance for patient safety. The American College of Surgeons and the American Medical Association have both developed position statements on the aging surgeon. Cognition, technical dexterity, and physical status vary greatly among individuals. Determining how educational methods can optimally be delivered to senior neurosurgeons, and understanding neurosurgeon perceptions, will help create the most appropriate resources. We present the first wide-scale survey of neurosurgeons to evaluate perceptions of Maintenance of Certification (MOC) and testing of the aging neurosurgeon. METHODS: We developed a validated, online, confidential survey and administered it to 4899 neurosurgeons (2435 American Board of Neurological Surgery (ABNS) Diplomates participating in MOC, 1440 Diplomates certified prior to 1999 (grandfathered), and 1024 retired Diplomates). We received 1247 responses overall (25% response rate). RESULTS: Most respondents (65%) were aged 50 and older. Overall, the majority of respondents (62%) believed that the aging neurosurgeon (defined as 65 years of age and older) should undergo additional testing, including cognitive assessment or a review of cases, in addition to a standard MOC examination. Sixty-seven percent of respondents believed there should be no absolute age cutoff at which neurosurgical practice is forced to end. If asked to select an age at which neurosurgical practice should cease, 29% recommended 70 years of age. Forty-two percent of respondents believed that MOC should be tailored to accommodate the aging neurosurgeon. The majority of respondents (59%) believed that MOC should consist of a review of individual case logs and patient outcomes for the aging neurosurgeon. CONCLUSION: Appropriately assessing the aging neurosurgeon is important to protect patient safety and also maximize the capacity of an aging neurosurgical workforce. This first of its kind comprehensive survey of neurosurgeon diplomates of the ABNS provides important information as to what evaluation mechanisms can be created to fairly evaluate aging neurosurgeons.

Plastic Surgery Review: A Study Guide for the In-Service, Written Board, and Maintenance of Certification Exams

Gregory E. Lakin, ed. Plastic Surgery Review: A Study Guide for the In-Service, Written Board, and Maintenance of Certification Exams . Paperback: 235 pages. Publisher: Thieme (December 30, 2014). Language: English; ISBN-10: 1604068361, ISBN-13: 978-1604068368; Price: $69.99. ![Graphic][1] As its title clearly states, this text is intended to be a succinct review of testable content for the plastic surgery In-Service, Written Board, and Maintenance of Certification examinations. It is intended for surgical residents, freshly trained plastic surgeons preparing for their written board examinations, and those approaching a 10-year maintenance of certification examination interval. The content is subdivided into 4 sections based on the In-Service examination: (1) Comprehensive Plastic Surgery, (2) Craniomaxillofacial, (3) Breast and Cosmetic Surgery, and (4) Hand and Lower Extremity Surgery. Altogether, there are 50 chapters to cover the breadth of plastic surgery in a “point form” manner. Each chapter is reviewed by an expert in the field to confirm that it is up-to-date and accurate. Pertinent references included at the end of each chapter permit further in-depth review as required. This text delivers on its goal of providing “high-yield” content in a simultaneously concise and comprehensive manner. The author list is impressive and diverse with “giants” in their respective … Corresponding Author: Dr Terence M. Myckatyn, Washington University School of Medicine, 1040 N. Mason, Suite 124, Saint Louis, MO 63141, USA. E-mail: myckatyn{at}wudosis.wustl.edu [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif

Forecasting the Effect of the Change in Timing of the ABR Diagnostic Radiology Examinations: Results of the ACR Survey of Practice Leaders

The results of a survey sent to practice leaders in the ACR Practice of Radiology Environment Database show that the majority of responding groups will continue to hire recently trained residents and fellows even though they have been unable to take the final ABR diagnostic radiology certifying examination. However, a significant minority of private practice groups will not hire these individuals. The majority of private practices expect the timing change for the ABR certifying examinations to affect their groups’ function. In contrast, the majority of academic medical school practices expect little or no impact. Residents and fellows should not expect work time off or protected time to study for the certifying examination or for their maintenance of certification examinations in the future.

Informal Peer Interaction and Practice Type as Predictors of Physician Performance on Maintenance of Certification Examinations.

Physicians can demonstrate mastery of the knowledge that supports continued clinical competence by passing a maintenance of certification examination (MOCEX). Performance depends on professional learning and development, which may be enhanced by informal routine interactions with colleagues. Some physicians, such as those in solo practice, may have less opportunity for peer interaction, thus negatively influencing their examination performance. To determine the relationship among level of peer interaction, group and solo practice, and MOCEX performance. Longitudinal cohort study of 568 surgeons taking the 2008 MOCEX. Survey responses reporting the level of physicians' peer interactions and their practice type were related to MOCEX scores, controlling for initial qualifying examination scores, practice type, and personal characteristics. Solo practice and amount of peer interaction. Scores on the MOCEX and pass-fail status. Of the 568 surgeons in the study sample, 557 (98.1%) passed the examination. Higher levels of peer interaction were associated with a higher score (β = 0.91 [95% CI, 0.31-1.52]) and higher likelihood of passing the examination (odds ratio, 2.58 [1.08-6.16]). Physicians in solo (vs group) practice had fewer peer interactions (β = -0.49 [95% CI, -0.64 to -0.33), received lower scores (β = -1.82 [-2.94 to -0.82]), and were less likely to pass the examination (odds ratio, 0.22 [0.06-0.77]). Level of peer interaction moderated the relationship between solo practice and MOCEX score; solo practitioners with high levels of peer interaction achieved an MOCEX performance on a par with that of group practitioners. Physicians in solo practice had poorer MOCEX performance. However, solo practitioners who reported high levels of peer interaction performed as well as those in group practice. Peer interaction is important for professional learning and quality of care.

Maintenance of certification: How does it affect cytopathologists?

Maintenance of certification: How does it affect cytopathologists?

The application of virtual microscopy in a dermatopathology educational setting: assessment of attitudes among dermatopathologists

Whole-slide imaging with virtual microscopy is increasingly used as a tool in resident education and training, board certification and maintenance of certification examinations, and diagnostic evaluation. The objective of this study was to determine attitudes toward virtual microscopy compared with traditional glass slide microscopy during a continuing medical education dermatopathology workshop. Twenty-three board-certified, practicing or retired dermatopathologists were given 26 "advanced" cases to review using both virtual microscopy and traditional glass slides. Diagnostic accuracy was not assessed because of the complexity of the cases. Participants were surveyed on: (i) their previous experience with digital imaging; (ii) the quality, ease of use, and speed of slide review; and (iii) overall attitudes toward digital and traditional review. Equal proportions of participants did and did not have prior experience with digital imaging of histopathologic specimens. Most participants preferred to use both virtual microscopy and traditional microscopy together. The quality of glass slides was rated as better than that of digital images, but virtual microscopy achieved higher ratings for ease of navigation and overall satisfaction. Virtual microscopy is a useful tool for dermatopathology workshops. Specifically, dermatopathologists with and without prior digital slide review experience responded favorably to viewing slides on a computer monitor. Overall satisfaction was high, and the majority of participants indicated that they would use virtual microscopy in the future. These results show a trend toward the acceptance of digital slide review, which supports the inevitable expansion of this practice in an increasingly digitized world.

Uncloaking Family Medicine Research: So Much To Know, So Little Time . . .

In their article “A Small Percentage of Family Physicians Report Time Devoted to Research,” Voorhees et al[1][1] estimate that only 4.9% of the 28,505 board-certified family physicians in the United States who completed a census before taking the maintenance of certification examination in 2007

The current status of allergy training in otolaryngology residency programs

Allergy is an important part of the practice of otolaryngology. The American Board of Otolaryngology (ABO) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) have increased specific requirements to include allergy as part of the didactic curriculum in training programs and in examinations of all levels. However, how much actual allergy training and education occurs in otolaryngology residency programs is unclear. The current and upcoming changes in ABO and ACGME requirements are reviewed, which include and expand on required allergy education in residency programs and standardized testing, including intraining, written, and maintenance of certification examinations. There is a dearth of literature regarding resident training in otolaryngic allergy and evaluation of resident competency in this area. A recent resident survey indicates that almost half of residents feel undertrained in this area and desire more education. Despite increasing requirements and specifications for allergy training from the ABO and ACGME, how much actual training and education in otolaryngology allergy occurs in residency programs is uncertain. Residents' survey responses indicate it is not enough and there is a void in the literature regarding this topic and resident competency assessment in this area. Further investigation is needed to help determine how residents are being trained and assessed.

ABPN Leaders Explain Goals, Background of MOC Program

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Education & TrainingFull AccessABPN Leaders Explain Goals, Background of MOC ProgramPatricia A. Vondrak, B.A., and Larry R. Faulkner, M.D.Patricia A. VondrakSearch for more papers by this author, B.A., and Larry R. FaulknerSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:20 Apr 2012https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.47.8.psychnews_47_8_6-aAbstractThe American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Program reflects the ABPN’s commitment to lifelong learning. The mission of the MOC Program is to advance the clinical practice of psychiatry and neurology by promoting the highest evidence-based guidelines and standards to ensure excellence in all areas of care and practice improvement.In keeping with the evolving nature of the MOC requirements for all physicians, the ABPN’s must remain consistent with the American Board of Medical Specialties’ (ABMS) guidelines. In sensing the growing threats from outside the medical field, the ABMS determined that ABMS specialists within every discipline should be required to meet the highest standards of quality patient health care. In response, the ABMS designed the MOC process. The goal of MOC is for diplomates to reflect on their personal knowledge and performance and commit to a process of improvement and reevaluation of performance measures over a specified time, ultimately leading to improved care for their patients.Each specialty board within the ABMS adheres to four components in their programs. The four components are designed to assess important physician characteristics: Professional Standing (Part 1), Self-Assessment and CME (Part 2), Cognitive Expertise (Part 3), and Performance in Practice (Part 4). These components are outlined in detail on the ABPN Web site at www.abpn.com, along with a list of ABPN-approved MOC products for self-assessment, CME, and performance in practice.Continuous Pathway to Lifelong LearningBeginning in 2012, diplomates who pass their initial certification or MOC examination will enter into the Continuous Pathway to Lifelong Learning (CP-MOC). Diplomates who passed their initial certification or MOC examination prior to 2012 will not be required to participate in this program, but they may elect to do so.This year, the ABPN is required to begin reporting diplomates as “Meeting” or “Not Meeting” MOC requirements. Lifetime certificate holders will be listed as “Certified but Not Meeting MOC requirements.” There will be a special note that meeting MOC requirements is not mandatory for lifetime certificate holders. However, lifetime certificate holders may elect to enter the CP-MOC Program by passing an MOC cognitive examination in their specialty.The CP-MOC Program will assist diplomates to comply with MOC requirements and time frames to facilitate the required annual recording and reporting of MOC participation. Instead of paying a higher fee at the time of the MOC examination, diplomates will pay a much smaller annual fee. This annual fee covers participation in ABPN Physician Folios and includes one MOC cognitive examination in a 10-year period.The focal point of the Continuous Pathway to Lifelong Learning Program is the ABPN Physician Folios, which offer a single source for personalized information regarding certification and MOC status. There is a large catalog of ABPN-approved MOC products in self-assessment, CME, and performance in practice listed on the ABPN Web site. We strongly recommend diplomates use ABPN-approved products to ensure they meet ABPN MOC Program requirements. For protection against incorrectly advertised MOC products, a diplomate will be required to utilize only ABPN-approved products beginning in 2014. This policy change was in response to diplomates’ frustration at misleading advertised products.While passing the cognitive examination is still required at least every 10 years, a diplomate’s certification status is dependent upon fulfillment of all four MOC Program components, along with annually logging into the ABPN’s Physician Folios and payment of an annual MOC registration fee.Future PlansThe ABPN continues to monitor the landscape and gather feedback from our diplomates on the MOC Program. The ABPN strives to give MOC credit to diplomates who are already participating in practice-improvement activities that meet the ABPN MOC Program requirements.Here are some examples of ABPN’s responses to diplomates’ feedback on MOC:Our acceptance of institutional quality assurance programs and patient surveys that meet our requirements.Our plan to ultimately provide Part IV credit for team projects completed at institutions that join a formal Institutional Recognition Program.Our plan to give credit for one stage of MOC activities (as outlined on the ABPN Web site) for diplomates who complete ACGME-accredited/ABPN-approved subspecialty training and sit for and pass an ABPN subspecialty examination. MOC information, ABPN Physician Folios, and ABPN-approved MOC products are posted at www.abpn.com/moc.Patricia Vondrak, B.A., is director of Examination Administration and MOC at ABPN; Larry Faulkner, M.D., is ABPN’s president and CEO. ISSUES NewArchived