Search

Background: In the United States, rare disease (RD) is defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals. Collectively, RD affects an estimated 30 million Americans. A significant portion of RD has an underlying genetic cause; however, this may go undiagnosed. To better serve these patients, the Mayo Clinic Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD) was created under the auspices of the Center for Individualized Medicine (CIM) aiming to integrate genomics into subspecialty practice including targeted genetic testing, research, and education., Methods: Patients were identified by subspecialty healthcare providers from 11 clinical divisions/departments. Targeted multi-gene panels or custom exome/genome-based panels were utilized. To support the goals of PRaUD, a new clinical service model, the Genetic Testing and Counseling (GTAC) unit, was established to improve access and increase efficiency for genetic test facilitation. The GTAC unit includes genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, genetic nurses, and a medical geneticist. Patients receive abbreviated point-of-care genetic counseling and testing through a partnership with subspecialty providers., Results: Implementation of PRaUD began in 2018 and GTAC unit launched in 2020 to support program expansion. Currently, 29 RD clinical indications are included in 11 specialty divisions/departments with over 142 referring providers. To date, 1152 patients have been evaluated with an overall solved or likely solved rate of 17.5% and as high as 66.7% depending on the phenotype. Noteworthy, 42.7% of the solved or likely solved patients underwent changes in medical management and outcome based on genetic test results., Conclusion: Implementation of PRaUD and GTAC have enabled subspecialty practices advance expertise in RD where genetic counselors have not historically been embedded in practice. Democratizing access to genetic testing and counseling can broaden the reach of patients with RD and increase the diagnostic yield of such indications leading to better medical management as well as expanding research opportunities., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: There is a need to better understand the overall state of sub-specialization in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R)., Objective: To examine the status and trends in subspecialty certification for each of the seven subspecialties approved for American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) diplomates., Design/setting: Retrospective analysis of deidentified information from the ABPMR database., Participants: Physicians certified by ABPMR through 2019., Interventions: Not applicable., Main Outcome Measures: For each subspecialty, we examined: (1) the number of certificates issued to ABPMR diplomates; (2) the recertification rate; (3) the yearly trends for total active, new, and expired certificates; and (4) for ABPMR-administered subspecialties, recertification rates for those entering the subspecialty through fellowship completion versus a "grandfathered" practice pathway., Results: Of 11,421 ABPMR diplomates in the United States in 2019, a total of 3560 (31.2%) had 3985 active subspecialty certificates. Pain Medicine (PM) was the most common subspecialty certification (15.5% of all ABPMR diplomates) followed by Sports Medicine (SM, 6.6%), Brain Injury Medicine (BIM, 4.8%), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (SCIM, 4.2%), Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM, 2.5%), Neuromuscular Medicine (NMM, 0.7%), and Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM, 0.5%). For diplomates with more than one subspecialty certification, PM and SM was the most frequent combination. Both the recertification rate and the end of practice track eligibility influenced certification trends differently for individual subspecialties. The average number of new certificates added annually for every subspecialty was higher before than after the temporary practice track-based eligibility ended; the difference was statistically significant (p < .05) for SCIM, PM, SM, and NMM. The recertification rate for all subspecialties combined was 73.4%. For the subspecialties (SCIM, PRM) for which these data were available, fellowship candidates had higher recertification rates than those grandfathered through a practice track., Conclusion: This report informs stakeholders about the state and evolution of subspecialty certification in PM&R over time., (© 2022 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.)

Abstract: Recognizing the dearth of published research on board certification in physical medicine and rehabilitation and its subspecialties, the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation has increased efforts to conduct and disseminate research in this area. This report summarizes key findings of peer-reviewed studies published by American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation staff and leadership in the past 6 yrs, including those conducted in partnership with other entities. The reported studies are organized in three main categories: initial certification, continuing certification, and subspecialty certification in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Related findings are further grouped into subsections that include psychometric evaluation of certification examinations, association of candidate characteristics with certification performance, relationship of certification performance to other measures, and candidate reaction and feedback. Collectively, the summarized results provide evidence that the board certification process is reliable, statistically valid, and predictive of the risk of disciplinary action in subsequent years. These studies also describe facets of our specialty including degree of subspecialization, burnout, and how people maintain certification over time. We hope that physical medicine and rehabilitation trainees, diplomates, institutions, programs, and other stakeholders find this information useful and look forward to continuing research in these and other areas in the spirit of constant evidence-based improvement and feedback to our specialty., Competing Interests: Financial disclosure statements have been obtained, and no conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors or by any individuals in control of the content of this article., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: The American Board of Medical Specialties Continuing Certification Program's Improvement in Medical Practice Standard requires physicians to participate in practice improvement activities. Despite this universal requirement, there has been no assessment of this requirement or its potential impact on patient care. Because of its continuing certification oversight structure, the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is in a unique position to provide this assessment. Review of quality improvement projects submitted to the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation for continuing certification compliance revealed that most diplomates (70.1%) used available topic-specific options. These projects are designed to be directive and easy to use for physicians with limited quality improvement experience. Examples of topic-directed project potential impact on patient care include preventing wrong-site injections through implementing a preprocedure timeout or decreasing opioid prescribing risk through implementation of an opioid risk assessment tool. Thirty percent of submissions described improvement efforts in other areas of practice. These projects were directed toward areas of patient care including safety, communication/education, satisfaction, processes, and outcomes. This study demonstrates the efforts of physiatrists to improve care and the potential impact of these efforts on patient care and safety through participation in continuing certification., Competing Interests: Financial disclosure statements have been obtained, and no conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors or by any individuals in control of the content of this article., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Physicians can lose board certification through revocation related to professionalism violations or expiration due to failure to complete continuing certification requirements. The purpose of this study was to analyze the causes of board certification loss for physicians with board certification through the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation., Design: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the certification status of 5541 American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation diplomates between 1993 and 2019 to determine reasons for certification loss. A focused analysis of diplomates with expired certificates in 2019 was conducted to further examine reasons for certificate expiration., Results: Of 5541 physicians, 496 (9%) had certification expiration due to failure to meet continuing certification requirements and 60 (1%) had certification revocation due to disciplinary actions, without regaining certification across the study years. A focused analysis of physicians with expired certificates in 2019 revealed that the majority had failed to complete multiple components of continuing certification. Practice improvement was the single most common incomplete requirement. Failure to pass the knowledge assessment was an uncommon cause for certification loss., Conclusions: Certification expiration through failure to complete all continuing certification requirements, versus revocation, is responsible for most instances of board certification loss. Practice improvement was the most common incomplete requirement., Competing Interests: Financial disclosure statements have been obtained, and no conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors or by any individuals in control of the content of this article., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: There is limited literature examining the reasons physical medicine and rehabilitation residents take an extended leave of absence during residency and the impact of leave on board examination performance. Such information could better inform leave policies, help guide residency program directors, and potentially destigmatize taking leave. Study objectives were to describe the characteristics of physical medicine and rehabilitation residents who take leave during residency, compare differences in part I (written) and part II (oral) certification examination performance, and determine the prevalence of delays in taking board examinations. Study methodology was a retrospective analysis of deidentified information from the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation database between 2008 and 2020. Results indicated four reasons for extended leave of absence: medical, parental, academic/remediation, and unspecified personal reasons. Residents who took an extended leave of absence for medical or parental reasons had similar or better odds of passing their part I and part II examinations compared with those without leave. Residents who took leave for academic/remediation concerns or unspecified personal reasons had lower odds of passing their board examinations. Examination delays for those taking parental or personal health leaves did not affect board pass rates. Further investigation is needed to identify how to support residents on academic/remediation and unspecified leaves during training., Competing Interests: Financial disclosure statements have been obtained, and no conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors or by any individuals in control of the content of this article., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: The American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation began administering the longitudinal assessment for physical medicine and rehabilitation for continuing certification in 2020. The longitudinal assessment for physical medicine and rehabilitation digitally delivers quarterly short assessments of content and repeats missed items to facilitate learning as well as serve as a summative certification assessment. With a goal of offering content relevant to an individual's practice and learning needs, diplomates choose how to customize the domains or topic areas of their question content on an annual basis. This report describes the first year of experience with customization of longitudinal assessment for physical medicine and rehabilitation. The American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation diplomate customization data are grouped and compared in a variety of ways to ascertain whether there are differences in customization choices. While customization choices were similar across several domains, significant differences were seen when comparing groups with specific areas of practice or subspecialty certification. Smaller differences were also seen when comparing question domain allocation choice between sexes, age groups, and practice setting. The results from this first full year of experience confirm an alignment of this innovative assessment approach to individual physician practice, a significant step in improving the relevance of continuing certification overall for participating physicians., Competing Interests: Financial disclosure statements have been obtained, and no conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors or by any individuals in control of the content of this article., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The study analyzed the relationship between participation in the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation maintenance of certification program and the incidence of disciplinary actions by state medical boards over a physician's career. The hypothesis is that physicians who do not maintain their board certification have a higher likelihood of state medical board disciplinary actions., Design: This retrospective cohort study analyzed American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation maintenance of certification data from all board-certified physiatrists who were enrolled in the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation maintenance of certification program from 1993 to 2007., Results: Matching examination and license data were available for 4794 physicians, who received a total of 212 disciplinary action reports through the Federation of State Medical Boards. The results showed that physicians who have a lapse in completing the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation maintenance of certification program have a 2.5-fold higher incidence of receiving a disciplinary action report through the Federation of State Medical Boards (95% confidence interval = 1.76-3.63) and had higher severity violations (χ = 7.14, P < 0.05) than physicians whose certificate never lapsed., Conclusions: For physicians in physical medicine and rehabilitation, loss of board certification through failure to fulfill the maintenance of certification program requirements is associated with an increased risk of disciplinary action from a state medical licensing board.

Background: Certification by the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) requires passing both a written multiple choice examination (Part I) and an oral examination (Part II), but it has been unclear whether the two examinations measure the same or different dimensions of knowledge., Objective: To evaluate the concordance between the Part I and Part II examinations for ABPMR initial certification with regard to candidate performance on the examinations and their subsets. Our question is whether the Part II examination provides additional assessment of a candidate beyond what Part I provides., Design: Retrospective psychometric evaluation of deidentified board examination scores., Setting: ABPMR database of Part I and Part II examination scores., Participants: Candidates for the ABPMR Part I and Part II examinations after 2005, with a more detailed analysis of candidates for the Part I examination from 2014 to 2016. Examination scores of candidates who took the Part II examination both before and after the examination was standardized in 2005 were also used for an additional analysis., Methods: Correlations, simple linear regressions, and principal components analysis., Main Outcome Measurements: Correlation coefficients, variance analysis, and unexplained variance in the principal components analysis., Results: There is a weak to moderate correlation between performance on the Part I and Part II examinations: r = 0.33, P < .001. There is an additional dimension of assessment that is demonstrated on the Part II examination, with this being primarily in the domains of systems-based practice and interpersonal communication skills., Conclusion: The Part I and Part II examinations, although with some overlap, contribute different and meaningful components to the overall evaluation of candidates for board certification in PM&R., Level of Evidence: III., (© 2019 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.)

Objective: Unconscious bias may result in a prejudicial evaluation of another person and lead to unfair treatment. Potential gender bias risk exists in the scoring process on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation oral examination (Part II) because of the face-to-face interactions between candidates and examiners. This study was undertaken to determine whether performance on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part II examination differed based on candidate gender or configuration of examiner/candidate gender pairings. The impact of examiner unconscious bias training on candidate performance was also assessed., Design: This is a retrospective observational study of first-time Part II physical medicine and rehabilitation certification examination test takers between 2013 and 2018., Results: There were significant differences in pass rates (men 84%, women 89%) and mean scaled scores (men 6.56, women 6.81) between men and women (P < 0.001) with the biggest domain score differences in data acquisition and interpersonal and communication skills. Implementation of examiner unconscious bias training did not impact candidate performance., Conclusions: Women candidates scored higher and had a higher pass rate than men candidates overall on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part II examination. This difference does not seem to be due to scoring gender bias by the Part II examiners or due to candidate aptitude as measured on the Part I examination.

Background: Maintenance of certification (MOC) in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is a process of lifelong learning that begins after successfully completing an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency and passing the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) Part I and Part II Examinations. We seek to identify factors predictive of successful MOC Examination performance., Objective: To identify characteristics predictive of successful completion on the ABPMR MOC Examination., Design: Retrospective review., Setting: American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation database review., Participants: 4,545 diplomates who completed the MOC Examination between January 2006 and December 2017., Methods: MOC Examination performance was the primary outcome variable. Performance on Part I and Part II Examinations were independent variables. Additional potential predictors evaluated included year of MOC cycle in which examination was taken, years of practice since residency completion, age, and subspecialty certification., Main Outcome Measures: Performance on MOC Examination., Results: Age at time of MOC Examination was inversely correlated with examination score (r = -0.14, P < .001). Similarly, as time since completion of residency training increased, MOC scores declined. Passing the Part I Examination on first attempt predicted a 98% MOC pass rate, compared to 90% for those who failed initially. MOC performance was highly correlated with Part I performance (r = 0.59, P < .001) and Part II performance (r = 0.32, P < .001). Although MOC performance was similar for those taking the examination in years 7 - 10 of their cycle (97% pass rate), those taking the examination after more than 10 years of the cycle had a significantly lower performance (85% pass rate, P < .01)., Conclusions: Better performance on the MOC Examination is associated with better performance on Part I and Part II Examinations, taking the examination earlier in the 10 year cycle, younger age, and less time since completion of training. Diplomates who are at higher risk for failing the examination may need to prepare differently for MOC Exam than those who are more likely to pass., Level of Evidence: III., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pediatric 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., Objectives: To 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., Design: A retrospective cohort study., Setting: American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation office., Participants: A total of 250 candidates taking the PRM subspecialty certification examination from 2003 to 2015., Methods: Scaled 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 Measurements: Board pass rates and mean scaled scores for initial PRM Examination and MOC., Results: The 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., Conclusions: Several 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 Evidence: III., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)