Primary Board Certification Research Articles

Molecular testing practices and perceptions among dermatopathologists.

We evaluated how dermatopathologists are employing molecular testing in the setting of neoplastic skin diseases, and assessed their opinions of the broader role and utility of molecular technologies in clinical practice. A 15-question online survey was sent to Fellows of the American Society of Dermatopathology in April 2017. One hundred and thirty-six dermatopathologists completed the survey (response rate = 16%). A majority (94%) of respondents reported experience with one or more molecular testing strategies. Sixty-two percent of dermatopathologists order 12 or more molecular tests per year, while 5% of respondents order 2 or fewer assays per year. More frequent utilization of molecular testing is associated with relevant instruction during residency training (P = .009), primary board certification in pathology (P = .008), academic medical center affiliation (P = <.0001), higher volume clinical practice (P = .0004), presence of on-site clinical molecular pathology/cytogenetics laboratory (P = .007), and greater physician confidence incorporating test results into histopathological assessments (P = <.0001). Wider adoption of molecular testing in dermatopathology may be limited by factors such as physician training, test costs/insurance coverage, logistical issues and lack of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Dermatopathologists have concerns regarding clinical validity/utility and inappropriate/overuse of some molecular tests. The importance of longitudinal education in molecular technologies and their applications for trainee and practicing physicians is highlighted.

Surgical Trends in the Treatment of Acute Achilles Ruptures

Category: Sports Introduction/Purpose: Historically, nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures was felt to have significant re-rupture rates. With improved functional rehabilitation, recent studies have shown decreased rates of tendon re-rupture. Recent randomized control trials circa 2010 have shown no difference in re-ruptures between early functional rehabilitation and surgical repair. The goal of this study was to evaluate trends in surgical treatment of Achilles ruptures, based on data obtained from the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS), in response to evolving level I evidence. Methods: All operative cases submitted by part II applicants from 2003 to 2015 for primary board certification by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) were retrospectively reviewed. Isolated primary Achilles tendon repairs for acute ruptures were identified by ICD-9 and CPT code. Surgeon information including fellowship training and geographic region, and patient information including age, sex, and complications were collected. Results: Out of 1,118,457 cases, there were 4792 Achilles repairs (0.43%) with 510 complications (10.6%). The rate of Achilles repairs increased from 2006 to 2010, when rates peaked at 0.57% of all collected cases (Figure 1). Since 2010, there has been a decrease in rates back to pre-2006 values. The changing rates appear to be largely driven by non-fellowship trained orthopaedic surgeons. The rates of sports and foot and ankle fellowship trained surgeons had mild increases in 2006 and decreases in 2010, but overall have slightly increased. The rate for patients greater than 65 have decreased from 2002 to 2004. Since then, there have been yearly variations, with minimal overall change. Examination of regional differences demonstrate the greatest change in the Northeast. All regions had increased rates in 2006 and decreased rates in 2010, with the exception of the Northwest and South regions, who showed little overall change. Conclusion: Surgical trends for Achilles ruptures corresponded closely to high impact level 1 publications in the literature in 2005 and 2010, suggesting evidence-based responsiveness in newly trained orthopaedic surgeons. These trends are less pronounced in the Northwest and South regions and for sports and foot and ankle specialists.

Objective Structured Clinical Examination and Board Certification in Anesthesiology

Objective Structured Clinical Examination and Board Certification in Anesthesiology

Cultural Competency Training Requirements in Graduate Medical Education

Cultural competency is an important skill that prepares physicians to care for patients from diverse backgrounds. We reviewed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) program requirements and relevant documents from the ACGME website to evaluate competency requirements across specialties. The program requirements for each specialty and its subspecialties were reviewed from December 2011 through February 2012. The review focused on the 3 competency domains relevant to culturally competent care: professionalism, interpersonal and communication skills, and patient care. Specialty and subspecialty requirements were assigned a score between 0 and 3 (from least specific to most specific). Given the lack of a standardized cultural competence rating system, the scoring was based on explicit mention of specific keywords. A majority of program requirements fell into the low- or no-specificity score (1 or 0). This included 21 core specialties (leading to primary board certification) program requirements (78%) and 101 subspecialty program requirements (79%). For all specialties, cultural competency elements did not gravitate toward any particular competency domain. Four of 5 primary care program requirements (pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, family medicine, and psychiatry) acquired the high-specificity score of 3, in comparison to only 1 of 22 specialty care program requirements (physical medicine and rehabilitation). The degree of specificity, as judged by use of keywords in 3 competency domains, in ACGME requirements regarding cultural competency is highly variable across specialties and subspecialties. Greater specificity in requirements is expected to benefit the acquisition of cultural competency in residents, but this has not been empirically tested.

Rationale for establishing a mechanism to increase reimbursement to hypertension specialists.

Hypertension is an important public health problem both in the United States and worldwide, contributing to many forms of cardiovascular and renal diseases. Although great strides have been made in the proportion of the US population that achieves recommended blood pressure targets, many Americans still have undertreated and uncontrolled blood pressure that increases the risk of expensive strokes, heart attacks, heart failure, and dialysis. Because hypertension is a common but heterogeneous and sometimes complex condition, the American Society of Hypertension (ASH) has, since 1999, designated physicians as "ASH Hypertension Specialists." Such Hypertension Specialists (as defined by ASH's Specialist Program) are fully licensed physicians with a primary board certification who are competent in all aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, as evidenced by passing a specific examination on these topics offered by ASH's Specialist Program. These physicians have a proven track record of controlling blood pressure in "resistant hypertensive" patients, the general population whom they serve, and educating other physicians to help them achieve higher blood pressure control rates among their patient populations. This report sets out a rationale for increased reimbursement for care of hypertensive patients by ASH-Designated Hypertension Specialists.

Clinical fellowship training in pathology informatics: A program description

Background:In 2007, our healthcare system established a clinical fellowship program in pathology informatics. In 2011, the program benchmarked its structure and operations against a 2009 white paper “Program requirements for fellowship education in the subspecialty of clinical informatics”, endorsed by the Board of the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) that described a proposal for a general clinical informatics fellowship program.Methods:A group of program faculty members and fellows compared each of the proposed requirements in the white paper with the fellowship program's written charter and operations. The majority of white paper proposals aligned closely with the rules and activities in our program and comparison was straightforward. In some proposals, however, differences in terminology, approach, and philosophy made comparison less direct, and in those cases, the thinking of the group was recorded. After the initial evaluation, the remainder of the faculty reviewed the results and any disagreements were resolved.Results:The most important finding of the study was how closely the white paper proposals for a general clinical informatics fellowship program aligned with the reality of our existing pathology informatics fellowship. The program charter and operations of the program were judged to be concordant with the great majority of specific white paper proposals. However, there were some areas of discrepancy and the reasons for the discrepancies are discussed in the manuscript.Conclusions:After the comparison, we conclude that the existing pathology informatics fellowship could easily meet all substantive proposals put forth in the 2009 clinical informatics program requirements white paper. There was also agreement on a number of philosophical issues, such as the advantages of multiple fellows, the need for core knowledge and skill sets, and the need to maintain clinical skills during informatics training. However, there were other issues, such as a requirement for a 2-year fellowship and for informatics fellowships to be done after primary board certification, that pathology should consider carefully as it moves toward a subspecialty status and board certification.

Pediatric Emergency Medicine Fellowships: Faculty and Resident Training Profiles

The objective of this study was to evaluate the faculty and graduate training profiles of Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM) fellowship training programs. An electronic 10-point questionnaire was sent to 57 PEM fellowship directors, with a 70% response rate. Analysis of the individual certification of faculty members in PEM training programs demonstrated that the largest represented training types were general pediatricians and pediatricians with PEM sub-certification (29% and 62% representation, respectively). The remaining faculty types consistently showed < 5% overall involvement. Reported estimates on faculty delivery of clinical training, didactic training, and procedural skills demonstrated that pediatricians sub-board certified in PEM consistently administered the highest percentage of these skill sets (74%, 68%, and 68%, respectively). Emergency Medicine-trained physicians showed a relative increase of involvement in fellowship programs administered by Emergency Medicine departments and in those programs located within adult hospitals. Yet, this involvement still remained substantially lower than that of the pediatric-type faculty. Program directors of fellowships within pediatric hospitals and those administered by Pediatric programs demonstrated a preference for general pediatricians with sub-board certification in PEM to improve their faculty pools. Program directors of fellowship programs located in adult hospitals and those administered by departments of EM demonstrated no preference in training type. Lastly, program directors report that 95% of past graduates received their primary board certification through Pediatrics and only 5% received their primary board certification through Emergency Medicine. There are currently many more pediatric-trained physicians among PEM fellowship faculty and graduates. This survey has demonstrated that there has been a decline in EM-trained physicians involved in PEM fellowships since 2000.

Chairpersons of pathology in the United States. Benchmarks for academic publications and professional credentials.

Chairpersons of pathology often are viewed as departmental role models in academic medical centers. To objectify this view, we undertook a systematic survey of publication records and professional certification among 126 chairpersons in the United States. The median of the total number of scientific publications by the cohort was 105 since graduation from medical school, and the median yearly number of peer-reviewed papers was 3.34 per person (mean, 4.25). A random 10% of the study population was analyzed further with reference to the percentage of publications that reflected basic science research; 41% of the total literature contributions of this subgroup fit that description, and only 38% of the chairpersons in the subgroup had 80% or more non-service-related publications. Of all chairpersons, 85% had obtained primary board certification in anatomic pathology, clinical pathology, or both, and 25% of the group had earned at least 1 subspecialty board certificate in addition. These numbers reflect an evolution in the professional backgrounds of chairpersons of pathology such that demands for academic scholarship and proficiency in hospital practice and management seem to pertain to that group.