Oral Board Examination Research Articles

An Exploratory Analysis of ChatGPT Compared to Human Performance With the Anesthesiology Oral Board Examination: Initial Insights and Implications.

Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has been tested and has passed various high-level examinations. However, it has not been tested on an examination such as the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The SOE is designed to assess higher-level competencies, such as judgment, organization, adaptability to unexpected clinical changes, and presentation of information. Four anesthesiology fellows were examined on 2 sample ABA SOEs. Their answers were compared to those produced by the same questions asked to ChatGPT. All human and ChatGPT responses were transcribed, randomized by module, and then reproduced as complete examinations, using a commercially available software-based human voice replicator. Eight ABA applied examiners listened to and scored the topic and modules from 1 of the 4 versions of each of the 2 sample examinations. The ABA did not provide any support or collaboration with any authors. The anesthesiology fellow's answers were found to have a better median score than ChatGPT, for the module topics scores (P = .03). However, there was no significant difference in the median overall global module scores between the human and ChatGPT responses (P = .17). The examiners were able to identify the ChatGPT-generated answers for 23 of 24 modules (95.83%), with only 1 ChatGPT response perceived as from a human. In contrast, the examiners thought the human (fellow) responses were artificial intelligence (AI)-generated in 10 of 24 modules (41.67%). Examiner comments explained that ChatGPT generated relevant content, but were lengthy answers, which at times did not focus on the specific scenario priorities. There were no comments from the examiners regarding Chat GPT fact "hallucinations." ChatGPT generated SOE answers with comparable module ratings to anesthesiology fellows, as graded by 8 ABA oral board examiners. However, the ChatGPT answers were deemed subjectively inferior due to the length of responses and lack of focus. Future curation and training of an AI database, like ChatGPT, could produce answers more in line with ideal ABA SOE answers. This could lead to higher performance and an anesthesiology-specific trained AI useful for training and examination preparation.

Variation in Oral Board Examination Accommodations Among Specialties

Board certification can have broad implications for candidates' career trajectories, and prior research has found sociodemographic disparities in pass rates. Barriers in the format and administration of the oral board examinations may disproportionately affect certain candidates. To characterize oral certifying examination policies and practices of the 16 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited specialties that require oral examinations. This cross-sectional study was conducted from March 1 to April 15, 2023, using data on oral examination practices and policies (examination format, dates, and setting; lactation accommodations; and accommodations for military deployment, family emergency, or medical leave) as well as the gender composition of the specialties' boards of directors obtained from websites, telephone calls and email correspondence with certifying specialists. The percentages of female residents and residents of racial and ethnic backgrounds who are historically underrepresented in medicine (URM) in each specialty as of December 31, 2021, were obtained from the Graduate Medical Education 2021 to 2022 report. For each specialty, accommodation scores were measured by a modified objective scoring system (score range: 1-13, with higher scores indicating more accommodations). Poisson regression was used to assess the association between accommodation score and the diversity of residents in that specialty, as measured by the percentages of female and URM residents. Linear regression was used to assess whether gender diversity of a specialty's board of directors was associated with accommodation scores. Included in the analysis were 16 specialties with a total of 46 027 residents (26 533 males [57.6%]) and 233 members of boards of directors (152 males [65.2%]). The mean (SD) total accommodation score was 8.28 (3.79), and the median (IQR) score was 9.25 (5.00-12.00). No association was found between test accommodation score and the percentage of female or URM residents. However, for each 1-point increase in the test accommodation score, the relative risk that a resident was female was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.96-1.16), and the relative risk that an individual was a URM resident was 1.04 (95% CI, 1.00-1.07). An association was found between the percentage of female board members and the accommodation score: for each 10% increase in the percentage of board members who were female, the accommodation score increased by 1.20 points (95% CI, 0.23-2.16 points; P = .03). This cross-sectional study found considerable variability in oral board examination accommodations among ACGME-accredited specialties, highlighting opportunities for improvement and standardization. Promoting diversity in leadership bodies may lead to greater accommodations for examinees in extenuating circumstances.

Editorial Comment: The American Board of Radiology Responds to Its Membership by Reinstating the Oral Board Examination for Certification in Diagnostic Radiology.

Editorial Comment: The American Board of Radiology Responds to Its Membership by Reinstating the Oral Board Examination for Certification in Diagnostic Radiology.

The Advanced Certifying Exam Simulation-Pro assessment instrument: evaluating surgical trainee examsmanship in virtual oral exams.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many educational activities in general surgery residency have shifted to a virtual environment, including the American Board of Surgery (ABS) Certifying Exam. Virtual exams may become the new standard. In response, we developed an evaluation instrument, the ACES-Pro, to assess surgical trainee performance with a focus on examsmanship in virtual oral board examinations. The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to assess the utility and validity of the evaluation instrument, and (2) to characterize the unique components of strong examsmanship in the virtual setting, which has distinct challenges when compared to in-person examsmanship. We developed a 15-question evaluation instrument, the ACES-Pro, to assess oral board performance in the virtual environment. Nine attending surgeons viewed four pre-recorded oral board exam scenarios and scored examinees using this instrument. Evaluations were compared to assess for inter-rater reliability. Faculty were also surveyed about their experience using the instrument. Pilot evaluators found the ACES-Pro instrument easy to use and felt it appropriately captured key professionalism metrics of oral board exam performance. We found acceptable inter-rater reliability in the domains of verbal communication, non-verbal communication, and effective use of technology (Guttmann's lambda-2 were 0.796, 0.916, and 0.739, respectively). The ACES-Pro instrument is an assessment with evidence for validity as understood by Kane's framework to evaluate multiple examsmanship domains in the virtual exam setting. Examinees must consider best practices for virtual examsmanship to perform well in this environment. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44186-023-00107-7.

Assessing pharmacy resident success via oral board examinations: Should there be a standard?

Assessing pharmacy resident success via oral board examinations: Should there be a standard?

Aortic Dissection Presenting as a STEMI.

This scenario was developed to educate emergency medicine residents on the presentation and management of a patient with a Stanford type A aortic dissection. Chest pain is one of the most common chief complaints seen in the emergency department with a deadly differential diagnosis list. A "can't miss" diagnosis, aortic dissection occurs when an intimal tear creates a false lumen in the aorta, with a variably reported incidence of approximately 2.5-5 per 100,000 person-years.1 This amounts to an estimated 8,000-16,000 cases per year in the United States with a mortality likely underestimated due to prehospital death ranging from 20-40% within 24 hours and 30-50% at 5 years.2,3,4 There is a reported increase in mortality by 1% for every hour the diagnosis is delayed, and half of diagnoses are made greater than 24 hours after presentation.5 The symptoms can range from chest pain to back pain, abdominal pain or extremity pain, to syncope or isolated neurologic deficits, even to shock or cardiac arrest.6 Aortic dissection is most commonly categorized into two groups: Stanford type A, involving the ascending aorta, and Stanford type B, involving only the descending aorta, and are generally managed surgically vs. medically respectively based on this paradigm.7,8 Stanford type A can be complicated by severe aortic regurgitation, pericardial tamponade or coronary artery occlusion mimicking ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). These potentials make it important to switch from heuristic to analytical thinking when developing a differential diagnosis.9 A high index of suspicion with early recognition and management is critical in this catastrophic disease state, especially given the propensity for complications and a wide variety of presentations. At the conclusion of the simulation session or during the debriefing session, learners will be able to: 1) Verbalize the anatomical differences and management of Stanford type A and type B aortic dissections, 2) Describe physical exam findings that may be found with ascending aortic dissections, 3) Describe the various clinical manifestations of the propagation of aortic dissections, 4) Discuss the management of aortic dissection, including treatment and disposition. This session was conducted using a simulation scenario with a high-fidelity manikin as the patient and confederate/actor in the nursing role, followed by a post-scenario debriefing session on the presentation, differential diagnosis, potential physical exam findings, and management of patients with aortic dissection. Debriefing methods may be left to the discretion of the educators, but the authors have utilized advocacy-inquiry techniques.10 This scenario may also be run as an oral board examination case. The residents are provided an electronic survey at the completion of the debriefing session to anonymously rate different aspects of the simulation, as well as provide qualitative feedback on the scenario. This survey is specific to the local institution's simulation center. Twenty learners completed a feedback form. This session received all 6 and 7 scores (consistently effective/very good and extremely effective/outstanding, respectively) other than one isolated 5 score. The lowest average score was 6.5 for, "Before the simulation, the instructor set the stage for an engaging learning experience," and the highest average score was 6.84 for, "The instructor identified what I did well or poorly - and why." Feedback from the residents was overwhelmingly positive (available upon request). All groups initially gave aspirin upon identification of the STEMI and several gave heparin. Debriefing topics included STEMI mimics, physical exam findings for aortic dissection, imaging and laboratory workup for aortic dissection, blood pressure and heart rate goals and pharmacologic management, uncomplicated STEMI management, and Type I versus Type II decision-making. This is an easily reproducible method for reviewing management of patients with aortic dissection. There are multiple potential presentations and complications of aortic dissections to further customize the experience for learners' needs. While it was discussed during debriefing that heparin administration was unlikely to cause immediate cardiopulmonary arrest, this state was included to reflect downstream hemorrhagic complications that may occur in the setting of antiplatelet administration for acute aortic dissection. Facilitators may choose to omit the arrest at their discretion. Medical simulation, emergency medicine, aortic dissection, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiovascular emergencies, hypertensive emergencies, STEMI mimics, vascular surgery, cardiothoracic surgery.

The Israeli Surgical Oral Board Examination: Improved Objectivity Increases Knowledge Authenticity.

The oral board examination in general surgery in Israel was recently revised aiming for improved objectivity and standardization. Herein, we describe the current exam model. Between 05/2018 and 11/2020, two exams per year were conducted with the current exam model. The examination consists of 12 stations, each focusing on a different field. Passing score is 80%. At the end of the examination, examiners and candidates complete a questionnaire regarding the examination’s process and quality (scale 1–5). A total of 142 residents attended six oral board examinations. Mean pass rate was 76.6 ± 9.5%. Questions with overall highest pass rates were acute-care surgery (86.6 ± 4.8%), foregut surgery (84.6 ± 7.6%), and colorectal surgery (84 ± 8.1%). Questions with the highest fail rates were surgical oncology (31.7 ± 13.3%) and abdominal-wall surgery (28.8 ± 16.9%). Examiners’ feedback scored highest the following: standardization of the exam (4.45 ± 0.63) and whether the presented cases reflect the daily work of an attending surgeon (4.35 ± 0.87). Candidates’ feedback scored highest the following: did the examiners treat you in an appropriate manner (4.08 ± 1.17). In conclusion, oral exams are challenging and bear limitations, but properly constructed exams allow good evaluation of the trainees’ thinking process and decision-making skills, without compromising exam’s integrity and standardization.

3rd-Degree Atrioventricular Block.

3rd-Degree Atrioventricular Block.

Lightning Strike.

This scenario was developed to educate emergency medicine residents on the various presentations and management of a patient struck by lightning. Annually, there are approximately 1.4 billon lightning strikes around the world; of these, an estimated 24,000 strikes cause significant injury or death.1 In the United States, there are approximately 400 lightning-related injuries every year resulting in 40 average annual deaths.1 Although only one in approximately 14,000 people will ever be struck by lightning, this still represents a significant injury mechanism for which emergency department providers must be prepared.2 Lightning is formed by static electricity built up due to ice crystals in clouds which creates a differential charge between the cloud and another object, such as the ground. Approximately one in every five lightning strikes is a cloud-to-ground strike which can result in injury or death. Lightning current flows may be as high as 100,000 amperes; this is survived 90% of the time only because the strong current of the bolt is applied in a very small timeframe, limiting the amount of energy transferred.3 Even so, with such large amperages, substantial injuries or death are possible. Not limited to a single mechanism, lightning can harm people in a variety of ways, including a direct strike, side-splash, ground current or upward streamers from the ground, or cause blast-type injury.2 The large electric currents involved can generate non-perfusing cardiac rhythms resulting in death if the patient is not immediately resuscitated through cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) techniques with respiratory support.2. At the conclusion of the simulation session, learners will be able to: 1) Describe how to evaluate for scene safety in an outdoor space during a thunderstorm, 2) Obtain a relevant focused physical examination of the lightning strike patient, 3) Describe the various manifestations of thermo-electric injury, 4) Discuss the management of the lightning strike patient, including treatment and disposition, 5) Outline the principles of reverse triage for lightning strike patients, and 6) Describe long-term complications of lightning strike injuries. This session was conducted using a simulation scenario with a mix of high-fidelity manikins and standardized patients followed by a debriefing session on the presentation, differential diagnosis, and management of lightning strike patients. Debriefing methods may be left to the discretion of participants, but the authors have utilized advocacy-inquiry techniques. This scenario may also be run as an oral board examination case. The residents are provided a survey at the completion of the debriefing session to rate different aspects of the simulation, as well as to provide qualitative feedback on the scenario. This survey is specific to the local institution's simulation center. Feedback from the residents was overwhelmingly positive, although several learners struggled with identifying Lichtenberg figures and keraunoparalysis either due to the low-light setting, unfamiliarity of the pathology, or that the depictions were not as expected. The subsequent debriefings allowed for multiple areas of discussion. Debriefing topics included the comparing and contrasting low voltage/high voltage/lightning strike injuries, possible clinical presentations of the lightning strike patient, reverse triage principles, categorizing blast injuries, discussion of disposition, and the determination of prehospital scene safety.The local institution's simulation center feedback form is based on the Center of Medical Simulation's Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) Student Version Short Form4 with the inclusion of required qualitative feedback if an element was scored less than a 6 or 7. Thirty-one learners completed a feedback form. This session received all 6 and 7 scores (consistently effective/very good and extremely effective/outstanding, respectively) other than one isolated 5 score. The statement, "Before the simulation, the instructor set the stage for an engaging learning experience," received the lowest average score with 6.81, while "The instructor structured the debriefing in an organized way" received an average score of 6.94.The form also includes an area for general feedback about the case at the end. Illustrative examples of feedback include: "Absolutely loved this sim. Tested multiple aspects of massCal care. Communication, critical care, scene safety, etc., nailed it," and "Very engaging and fun with a lot (of) good debriefing." This is an easily reproducible method for reviewing management of the lightning strike patient. Faculty may choose to use a combination of high- or low-fidelity manikins, task trainers, standardized patients, or confederate actors/volunteers as patients. There are multiple potential presentations and complications of the lightning strike patient to further customize the experience for learners' needs. For those who are looking to scale down the scenario, victims may be limited to one or two individuals, using whatever preferred mixture of manikins or standardized patients is needed or desired. Medical simulation, lightning strike patient, thermo-electrical burn, wilderness first-aid, blast injuries, wilderness medicine, emergency medicine, austere medicine.

Unprecedented Training: Experience of Residents During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Unprecedented Training: Experience of Residents During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Interrater Reliability in the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part II Certification Examination: Impact of a New Assessment Design.

The design of medical board certification examinations continues to evolve with advances in testing innovations and psychometric analysis. The potential for subjectivity is inherent in the design of oral board examinations, making improvements in reliability and validity especially important. The purpose of this quality improvement study was to analyze the impact of using two examiners on the overall reliability of the oral certification examination in physical medicine and rehabilitation. This was a retrospective quality improvement study of 422 candidates for the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part II Examination in 2020. Candidates were examined by examiner pairs, each of whom submitted independent scores. Training for all 116 examiners included examination case review, scoring guidelines, and bias mitigation. Examiner performance was analyzed for both internal consistency (intrarater reliability) and agreement with their paired examiner (interrater reliability). The reliability of the Part II Examination was high, ranging from 0.93 to 0.94 over three administrations. The analysis also demonstrated high interrater agreement and examiner internal consistency. A high degree of interrater agreement was found using a new, two-examiner format. Comprehensive examiner training is likely the most significant factor for this finding. The two-examiner format improved the overall reliability and validity of the Part II Examination.

Mock Oral Board Examination in Nurse Anesthesia Education.

Despite its widespread use in anesthesia residency training, mock oral board examinations (MOBEs) are not included in the pedagogy of most nurse anesthesia programs (NAPs). A small-scale study was conducted to assess the use of MOBEs in this setting. The investigational cohort consisted of 10 second-year students in a master's program in nurse anesthesia. MOBEs were scored according to a common rubric, and final scores were reconciled by raters. Responses from pretest and posttest questionnaires, as well as scoring data, were analyzed. MOBEs were administered in a problem-free manner to nurse anesthesia students and was perceived by these students as a valuable addition to their curriculum. There was pass-fail agreement among the raters related to clinical analysis, fund of knowledge, and communication skills, and the scoring was characterized by elements of internal consistency. MOBEs are feasible in an NAP, and well accepted by students. MOBEs have significant evaluative potential in this setting. [J Nurs Educ. 2021;60(4):229-234.].

Objective Resident Characteristics Associated with Performance on the Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program Examination.

Background To determine objective resident characteristics that correlate with Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) performance, as well as to correlate OKAP performance with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestone assessments, written qualifying examination (WQE) scores, and oral board pass rates. Methods Review of administrative records at an ACGME-accredited ophthalmology residency training program at an urban, tertiary academic medical center. Results The study included data from a total of 50 resident physicians who completed training from 2012 to 2018. Mean (standard deviation) OKAP percentile performance was 60.90 (27.51), 60.46 (28.12), and 60.55 (27.43) for Years 1, 2, and 3 examinations, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences based on sex, marital status, having children, MD/PhD degree, other additional degree, number of publications, number of first author publications, or grades on medical school medicine and surgery rotations. OKAP percentile scores were significantly associated with United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores (linear regression coefficient 0.88 [0.54-1.18], p = 0.008). Finally, continuous OKAP scores were significantly correlated with WQE ( r s = 0.292, p = 0.049) and oral board ( r s = 0.49, p = 0.001) scores. Conclusion Higher OKAP performance is correlated with passage of both WQE and oral board examinations during the first attempt. USMLE Step 1 score is the preresidency academic factor with the strongest association with success on the OKAP examination. Programs can utilize this information to identify those who may benefit from additional OKAP, WQE, and oral board preparation assistance.

American Board of Anesthesiology Mock Standardized Oral Examination Faculty Development Workshop

IntroductionPreparation for oral board examination is an important part of residency training. Anesthesiology programs provide mock oral exams for their trainees, but often, faculty have little guidance on the conduct of these exams. We describe a faculty development workshop for anesthesiology faculty to enhance their familiarity with the American Board of Anesthesiology Standardized Oral Examination (SOE).MethodsWe created a faculty development workshop to administer to a live audience. The session consisted of didactic and practical components. A one-page tip sheet was also included to distribute to all faculty administering mock SOEs, for review and reference prior to administering an exam. Faculty and residents were surveyed before and after the session.ResultsEleven faculty participated in the live session. Eighty-two percent of faculty (nine of 11) committed to making a change in the way they delivered mock SOE as a result of attending the session. Fifty-eight percent of faculty (32 of 55) who responded to the postintervention survey reported that they used the tip sheet prior to administering a subsequent mock SOE. Residents described improvement in the clarity and organization of feedback following the intervention.DiscussionFaculty members play a vital role in preparing residents for board certification. It is therefore important that faculty are appropriately oriented to the goals and conduct of the mock SOE. After taking this workshop, faculty members will be more likely to adapt their examiner style to focus on the ABA-defined examinee attributes and to provide feedback after the mock SOE.

Preparation for the ABR Core Exam: Resident Study Habits and the Value of Case Conferences.

Preparation for the Core Exam remains a challenge for both radiology residents and their residency programs. Recent high failure rates (reaching almost 16% in 2019) and the high stakes of the examination underscore the need to understand factors leading to underperformance [1]. Of note, oral board examination fail rates were generally lower, varying between 8% and 12% in the 5 years preceding the Core Exam, suggesting the stakes have indeed increased in recent years [2].

Thyroid Storm.

This is a practice oral boards case which may be given to emergency medicine (EM) residents at all levels of training and recent EM graduates. Thyroid storm is an acute, life-threatening endocrine emergency. It occurs when there is excess circulating thyroid hormone in the bloodstream. It may be precipitated by infection, surgery, pregnancy, trauma, thyroid medication changes, or iodinated contrast exposure. This condition must be quickly identified and treated by EM physicians in order to prevent morbidity and mortality. IThe mortality rate is between 10 and 30%1 Understanding and treating thyroid storm is included in the 2019 Model of Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine.2. At the end of this practice oral boards case, the learner will: 1) assess a patient with altered mental status in an oral boards format; 2) review appropriate laboratory testing and diagnostic imaging; 3) identify signs and symptoms of thyroid storm and 4) review appropriate pharmacologic therapies with the proper sequence and timing. Practice boards case. This oral boards practice case was developed and then tested in several small group settings. First, EM resident learners discussed the case in a small group format. Their feedback was utilized to refine the case's textual information. Subsequently, EM physicians preparing for the ABEM oral board examination provided additional general feedback of the case and completed an anonymous survey regarding case quality and educational value. Minor changes were made based on feedback from small group sessions. The finalized case was tested with individuals, and surveys showed that 92% (12/13) of individuals rated the case quality as excellent (standard Likert scale 1-5 with 5 being Excellent). All participants responded affirmatively that the case enhanced their understanding of thyroid storm. This oral boards practice case was effective in preparing learners for the ABEM oral boards exam. Based on learner feedback, several laboratory results were added to the stimulus package and wording was edited to improve the clarity of the case. Hyperthyroidism, thyrotoxicosis, thyroid storm, endocrine emergencies, altered mental status.

Agitated Psychiatric Patient.

This scenario was developed to educate emergency medicine residents about the diagnosis and management of the agitated psychiatric patient. The prevalence of agitation among patients in the emergency department is increasing, with an estimated 1.7 million events occurring annually in the United States.1 There are various methodologies for de-escalation, including verbal and chemical de-escalation and physical restraints. Chemical and/or physical restraints are sometimes necessary to ensure patient and staff safety when verbal de-escalation is ineffective, particularly since agitation is the leading cause of hospital staff injuries.2 Chemical restraints have been shown to be less physically traumatizing to patients.3 4 Adverse events associated with physical restraints include persistent psychological distress, blunt chest trauma, aspiration, respiratory depression, and asphyxiation leading to cardiac arrest.5 In regards to chemical restraints, adverse event reporting has been heterogeneous among studies, but the most consistent reported events involve respiratory compromise such as desaturation, airway obstruction, and respiratory depression.3 A study measuring QTc (corrected QT interval) after high-dose intramuscular ziprasidone or haloperidol did not demonstrate any QTc longer than 480 msec.6 Other events linked to chemical restraints include uncommon cardiovascular events and extrapyramidal side effects from medications.3 The main classes of medications utilized for chemical restraint include first-generation antipsychotics (eg, haloperidol and droperidol), second-generation antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, aripiprazole, and ziprasidone), benzodiazipenes (eg, lorazepam and midazolam), and N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonists (eg, ketamine).7,8 It is important to exclude other medical causes of agitation, consider the differential diagnoses, and then select a medication that is tailored to address underlying etiologies while remaining cognizant of the side effect profiles of these chemical agents.Educational Objectives: At the conclusion of the simulation session, learners will be able to: 1) Obtain a relevant focused history and physical examination on the agitated psychiatric patient. 2) Develop a differential for the agitated psychiatric patient, including primary psychiatric conditions and other organic pathologies. 3) Discuss the management of the agitated psychiatric patient, including the different options available for chemical sedation. 4) Prioritize safety of self and staff when caring for an agitated psychiatric patient. This session was conducted using simulation with a standardized patient, followed by a debriefing session and lecture on the presentation, differential diagnosis, and management of the agitated psychiatric patient. Debriefing methods may be left to the discretion of participants, but the authors have utilized advocacy-inquiry techniques. This scenario may also be run as an oral board examination case. The residents are provided a survey at the completion of the debriefing session to rate different aspects of the simulation, as well as provide qualitative feedback on the scenario. This survey is specific to the local institution's simulation center. Feedback from the residents was overwhelmingly positive, although many stated that they felt some degree of intimidation or stress from the standardized patient who did not break from their role throughout the scenario.The local institution's simulation center feedback form is based on the Center of Medical Simulation's Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) Student Version Short Form9 with the inclusion of required qualitative feedback if an element was scored less than a 6 or 7. This session received mostly 7 scores (extremely effective/outstanding). This is a physically safe method for reviewing management of the agitated psychiatric patient. There are multiple potential presentations of the agitated psychiatric patient, as well as varying underlying etiologies. These scenarios may be tailored to the needs of the learner, including identifying agitation, pharmacologic review, and de-escalation techniques. Medical simulation, agitated psychiatric patient, chemical sedation, verbal de-escalation, emergency medicine, psychiatry.

Mock Oral Board Examinations via Web-based Video Teleconferencing in the Era of COVID-19.

Owing to infection control measures necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, many educational didactic components within residency programs have needed to adapt to virtual formats. We describe and evaluate the transition of an in-person mock oral board certification examination to an entirely virtual format. Oral board cases consisting of two single cases and one triple case were adapted to a virtual format using a Web-based video teleconferencing platform. Faculty examiners underwent 20-minute training sessions prior to the examination. Both resident examinees and faculty examiners completed postexamination surveys. The system usability scale (SUS) was used to assess the usability of the new format by the faculty examiners. Fifteen resident examinees completed the mock virtual oral board examination with eight faculty examiners. All faculty members completed the postexamination survey. The mean (±SD) SUS score was 90.6 (±11.5) out of a maximum of 100. Eleven of 15 (73%) resident examinees completed the postexamination survey. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that examiner instructions were easy to understand and that examiners were adept at using the Web-based platform. Some technical issues were encountered including audio difficulties for some examiners. Respondents were split regarding personal preference for virtual or in-person mock oral board formats. Utilizing video teleconferencing software to provide a virtual, Web-based alternative to in-person mock oral board examination was feasible, and the virtual format was shown to have high usability despite minimal training time for experienced faculty examiners.

Virtual Surgery Oral Board Examinations in the Era of COVID-19 Pandemic. How I Do It!

INTRODUCTIONTraditional in-person Mock Oral Examinations (IP-MOEs) are utilized by surgery residency programs to prepare trainees for the American Board of Surgery Certifying Exam (ABS-CE). However, the COVID-19 Pandemic has led to a profound disruption of on-campus and in-person educational activities, with subsequent instantaneous revolutionization of educational systems all over the world, including a massive switch to virtual platforms. Many in-person didactics and examinations were canceled or rescheduled, including the ABS-CE. The study aims to evaluate Virtual MOEs’ (V-MOEs) feasibility as a potential alternative to in-person MOEs in residency programs.METHODSTwenty-five participants–16 general surgery residents (7 females, 9 males) and 9 faculty – in the inaugural Department of Surgery Virtual Mock Oral Examination completed an anonymous, voluntary online survey via Microsoft Forms. Faculty was given 24 questions, and residents 28, with 9 questions common between both residents and faculty. Participants were asked about the accessibility to virtual examination rooms, V-MOE effectiveness, resident's preparation for the exam, resident's stress, diversity, and number of clinical scenarios, and possible future implementation of, and barriers to, V-MOEs.RESULTSAll participants have participated in IP-MOEs in the past. All faculties were very satisfied or satisfied with IP-MOE, compared to 93.8% of residents. All participants were very satisfied or satisfied with the orientation and instructions before V-MOE. Only 66.6% of faculty, compared to all residents, was satisfied with time allocation for sessions. While 88.9% of faculty felt the V-MOE was less stressful on residents, only 68.8% of residents felt so. Additionally, 87.5% of residents said they prepared for the V-MOE similarly to the IP-MOE. As a future platform, only 22.2% of faculty compared to 43.8% of residents preferred V-MOE over the IP-MOE. Both faculty (88.9%), and residents (81.3%) preferred immediate feedback at the end of sessions. All faculty recommend collaboration with other programs to enhance the resident's preparation. Time constraints, lack of experience with the format, and availability were the top 3 barriers.CONCLUSIONV-MOE is feasible, accessible, and a potential alternative for IP-MOEs at a program level for ABS-CE preparation. Given the time constraints and costs associated with IP-MOEs, it is an opportunity to collaborate with other residency programs.

Digitally decentralised mock oral board examination for neurological surgery trainees.

Digitally decentralised mock oral board examination for neurological surgery trainees.