Search

PURPOSE: Medical oncologists have a variety of options for demonstrating proficiency in providing high-quality patient care. Perhaps, the best-known opportunity for demonstrating individual expertise and lifelong learning is the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) maintenance of certification (MOC) program. At the practice level, ASCO has offered the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) as a means of optimizing cancer care delivery. In this study, we assess the association between active involvement in MOC on an individual basis and whether that individual’s practice is involved with the QOPI program. METHODS: We evaluated 13,600 US medical oncologists initially certified by the ABIM and divided them into those initially certified before 1990 (the year in which ABIM started to require periodic recertification), those from 1990 to 2007, and those from 2008 to 2016. It was then determined which of these had let their certificates expire by 2020. These data were then compared with practices that participated in QOPI from 2017 to 2019, resulting in the matching of 97% of physicians RESULTS: Of individuals initially certified before 1990 (and technically with lifelong certification), 22% were in QOPI practices. Among those who did not have lifelong certification, there was an association between QOPI participation and maintenance of ABIM certification. For those initially certified between 1990 and 2007, 35% of oncologists with up-to-date ABIM certification were in QOPI practices, whereas only 11% with expired ABIM certification were QOPI participants ( P < .0001). For those in the 2008-2016 category, the numbers were 36% v 16%, respectively ( P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis identifies a relationship between participation in these ABIM and ASCO proficiency programs. The reasons for this are likely complex and based on a variety of institutional, professional, monetary, and personal factors.

Background The pass rate on the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) nephrology certifying exam has declined and is among the lowest of all internal medicine (IM) subspecialties. In recent years, there have also been fewer applicants for the nephrology fellowship match. Methods This retrospective observational study assessed how changes between 2010 and 2019 in characteristics of 4094 graduates of US ACGME-accredited nephrology fellowship programs taking the ABIM nephrology certifying exam for the first time, and how characteristics of their fellowship programs were associated with exam performance. The primary outcome measure was performance on the nephrology certifying exam. Fellowship program pass rates over the decade were also studied. Results Lower IM certifying exam score, older age, female sex, international medical graduate (IMG) status, and having trained at a smaller nephrology fellowship program were associated with poorer nephrology certifying exam performance. The mean IM certifying exam percentile score among those who subsequently took the nephrology certifying exam decreased from 56.7 (SD, 27.9) to 46.1 (SD, 28.7) from 2010 to 2019. When examining individuals with comparable IM certifying exam performance, IMGs performed less well than United States medical graduates (USMGs) on the nephrology certifying exam. In 2019, only 57% of nephrology fellowship programs had aggregate 3-year certifying exam pass rates ≥80% among their graduates. Conclusions Changes in IM certifying exam performance, certain trainee demographics, and poorer performance among those from smaller fellowship programs explain much of the decline in nephrology certifying exam performance. IM certifying exam performance was the dominant determinant.

ObjectiveTo determine whether internists’ initial specialty certification and the maintenance of that certification (MOC) is associated with lower in-hospital mortality for their patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or congestive heart failure (CHF).DesignRetrospective cohort study of hospitalisations in Pennsylvania, USA, from 2012 to 2017.SettingAll hospitals in Pennsylvania.ParticipantsAll 184 115 hospitalisations for primary diagnoses of AMI or CHF where the attending physician was a self-designated internist.Primary outcome measureIn-hospital mortality.ResultsOf the 2575 physicians, 2238 had initial certification and 820 were eligible for MOC. After controlling for patient demographics and clinical characteristics, hospital-level factors and physicians’ demographic and medical school characteristics, both initial certification and MOC were associated with lower mortality. The adjusted OR for initial certification was 0.835 (95% CI 0.756 to 0.922; pConclusionsInitial certification was associated with lower mortality for AMI or CHF. Moreover, for patients whose physicians had initial certification, an additional advantage was associated with its maintenance.

PURPOSE: Critics argue that the American Board of Internal Medicine’s medical oncology Maintenance of Certification examination requires medical oncologists with a narrow scope of practice to spend time studying material that is no longer relevant to their practice. However, no data are available describing the scope of practice for medical oncologists. METHODS: Using Medicare claims, we examined the scope of practice for 9,985 medical oncologists who saw 8.6 million oncology conditions in 2016, each of which was assigned to 1 of 23 different condition groups. Scope of practice was then measured as the percentage of oncology conditions within each of the 23 groups. We grouped physicians with similar scopes of practice by applying K-means clustering to the percentage of conditions seen. The scope of practice for each physician cluster was determined from the cancers that encompassed the majority of average oncology conditions seen among physicians composing the cluster. RESULTS: We found 20 distinct scope-of-practice clusters. The largest (n = 6,479 [65.5%]) had a general oncology scope of practice. The remaining physicians focused on a narrow scope of cancers, including 22.6% focused on ≥ 1 solid tumors and 11.9% focused on hematologic malignancies. The largest focused cluster accounted for 7.7% of physicians focused on breast cancer. CONCLUSION: A single American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification assessment in medical oncology is most appropriate for approximately 65% of certified medical oncologists’ practices. However, the addition of assessments focused on breast cancer and hematologic malignancies could increase this figure to upwards of 85% of certified medical oncologists.

ObjectiveDiagnostic error is a key healthcare concern and can result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Yet no study has investigated the relationship between adverse outcomes resulting from diagnostic errors and one potentially large contributor to these errors: deficiencies in diagnostic knowledge. Our objective was to measure that associations between diagnostic knowledge and adverse outcomes after visits to primary care physicians that were at risk for diagnostic errors.Setting/participants1410 US general internists who recently took their American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification (ABIM-IM-MOC) exam treating 42 407 Medicare beneficiaries who experienced 48 632 ‘index’ outpatient visits for new problems at risk for diagnostic error because the presenting problem (eg, dizziness) was related to prespecified diagnostic error sensitive conditions (eg, stroke).Outcome measures90-day risk of all-cause death, and, for outcome conditions related to the index visits diagnosis, emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalisations.DesignUsing retrospective cohort study design, we related physician performance on ABIM-IM-MOC diagnostic exam questions to patient outcomes during the 90-day period following an index visit at risk for diagnostic error after controlling for practice characteristics, patient sociodemographic and baseline clinical characteristics.ResultsRates of 90-day adverse outcomes per 1000 index visits were 7 for death, 11 for hospitalisations and 14 for ED visits. Being seen by a physician in the top versus bottom third of diagnostic knowledge during an index visit for a new problem at risk for diagnostic error was associated with 2.9 fewer all-cause deaths (95% CI −5.0 to −0.7, p=0.008), 4.1 fewer hospitalisations (95% CI −6.9 to −1.2, p=0.006) and 4.9 fewer ED visits (95% CI −8.1% to −1.6%, p=0.003) per 1000 visits.ConclusionHigher diagnostic knowledge was associated with lower risk of adverse outcomes after visits for problems at heightened risk for diagnostic error.

Eleven months into the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the country faces accelerating rates of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Little is known about the experiences of critical care physicians caring for the sickest coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Our goal is to understand how high stress levels and shortages faced by these physicians during Spring 2020 have evolved.We surveyed (October 23, 2020 to November 16, 2020) U.S. critical care physicians treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients who participated in a National survey earlier in the pandemic (April 23, 2020 to May 3, 2020) regarding their stress and shortages they faced.ICU.Coronavirus disease 2019 patients.Irrelevant.Physician emotional distress/physical exhaustion: low (not at all/not much), moderate, or high (a lot/extreme). Shortage indicators: insufficient ICU-trained staff and shortages in medication, equipment, or personal protective equipment requiring protocol changes.Of 2,375 U.S. critical care attending physicians who responded to the initial survey, we received responses from 1,356 (57.1% response rate), 97% of whom (1,278) recently treated coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Two thirds of physicians (67.6% [864]) reported moderate or high levels of emotional distress in the Spring versus 50.7% (763) in the Fall. Reports of staffing shortages persisted with 46.5% of Fall respondents (594) reporting a staff shortage versus 48.3% (617) in the Spring. Meaningful shortages of medication and equipment reported in the Spring were largely alleviated. Although personal protective equipment shortages declined by half, they remained substantial.Stress, staffing, and, to a lesser degree, personal protective equipment shortages faced by U.S. critical care physicians remain high. Stress levels were higher among women. Considering the persistence of these findings, rising levels of infection nationally raise concerns about the capacity of the U.S. critical care system to meet ongoing and future demands.

OBJECTIVES: Eleven months into the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the country faces accelerating rates of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Little is known about the experiences of critical care physicians caring for the sickest coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Our goal is to understand how high stress levels and shortages faced by these physicians during Spring 2020 have evolved. DESIGN: We surveyed (October 23, 2020 to November 16, 2020) U.S. critical care physicians treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients who participated in a National survey earlier in the pandemic (April 23, 2020 to May 3, 2020) regarding their stress and shortages they faced. SETTING: ICU. PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTION: Irrelevant. MEASUREMENT: Physician emotional distress/physical exhaustion: low (not at all/not much), moderate, or high (a lot/extreme). Shortage indicators: insufficient ICU-trained staff and shortages in medication, equipment, or personal protective equipment requiring protocol changes. MAIN RESULTS: Of 2,375 U.S. critical care attending physicians who responded to the initial survey, we received responses from 1,356 (57.1% response rate), 97% of whom (1,278) recently treated coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Two thirds of physicians (67.6% [864]) reported moderate or high levels of emotional distress in the Spring versus 50.7% (763) in the Fall. Reports of staffing shortages persisted with 46.5% of Fall respondents (594) reporting a staff shortage versus 48.3% (617) in the Spring. Meaningful shortages of medication and equipment reported in the Spring were largely alleviated. Although personal protective equipment shortages declined by half, they remained substantial. CONCLUSIONS: Stress, staffing, and, to a lesser degree, personal protective equipment shortages faced by U.S. critical care physicians remain high. Stress levels were higher among women. Considering the persistence of these findings, rising levels of infection nationally raise concerns about the capacity of the U.S. critical care system to meet ongoing and future demands.

PURPOSE To examine whether there are group differences in milestone ratings submitted by program directors working with clinical competency committees (CCCs) based on gender for internal medicine (IM) residents and whether women and men rated similarly on milestones perform comparably on subsequent in-training and certification examinations. METHOD This national retrospective study examined end-of-year medical knowledge (MK) and patient care (PC) milestone ratings and IM In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) and IM Certification Examination (IM-CE) scores for 2 cohorts (2014-2017, 2015-2018) of U.S. IM residents at ACGME-accredited programs. It included 20,098/21,440 (94%) residents, with 9,424 women (47%) and 10,674 men (53%). Descriptive statistics and differential prediction techniques using hierarchical linear models were performed. RESULTS For MK milestone ratings in PGY-1, men and women showed no statistical difference at a significance level of .01 (P = .02). In PGY-2 and PGY-3, men received statistically higher average MK ratings than women (P = .002 and P < .001, respectively). In contrast, men and women received equivalent average PC ratings in each PGY (P = .47, P = .72, and P = .80, for PGY-1, PGY-2, and PGY-3, respectively). Men slightly outperformed women with similar MK or PC ratings in PGY-1 and PGY-2 on the IM-ITE by about 1.7 and 1.5 percentage points, respectively, after adjusting for covariates. For PGY-3 ratings, women and men with similar milestone ratings performed equivalently on the IM-CE. CONCLUSIONS Milestone ratings were largely similar for women and men. Generally, women and men with similar MK or PC milestone ratings performed similarly on future examinations. Although there were small differences favoring men on earlier examinations, these differences disappeared by the final training year. It is questionable whether these small differences are educationally or clinically meaningful. The findings suggest fair, unbiased milestone ratings generated by program directors and CCCs assessing residents.

This cohort study examines the association between health care intensity in the region where physicians practice and their ability to practice high-value care, specifically for physicians who relocated after residency., Key Points Question How does the health care environment in a region influence internists’ clinical capabilities, particularly the ability to practice high-value care? Findings This cohort study of 2714 newly certified internists (in 2002) who relocated to a new region after completing residency found that higher intensity of use of health care services in a physician’s destination region was associated with reduced ability to practice appropriately conservative care 1 decade later compared with that ability measured at the end of residency. Meaning The demands of practicing in high-intensity service regions may erode internists’ ability to practice high-value, conservative care., Importance 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. Objective 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. Design, Setting, and Participants 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. Exposures 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). Main Outcomes and Measures 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. Results 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. Conclusions and Relevance 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.

To evaluate validity evidence for internal medicine milestone ratings across programs for three resident cohorts by quantifying "not assessable" ratings; reporting mean longitudinal milestone ratings for individual residents; and correlating medical knowledge ratings across training years with certification examination scores to determine predictive validity of milestone ratings for certification outcomes.This retrospective study examined milestone ratings for postgraduate year (PGY) 1-3 residents in U.S. internal medicine residency programs. Data sources included milestone ratings, program characteristics, and certification examination scores.Among 35,217 participants, there was a decreased percentage with "not assessable" ratings across years: 1,566 (22.5%) PGY1s in 2013-2014 versus 1,219 (16.6%) in 2015-2016 (P = .01), and 342 (5.1%) PGY3s in 2013-2014 versus 177 (2.6%) in 2015-2016 (P = .04). For individual residents with three years of ratings, mean milestone ratings increased from around 3 (behaviors of an early learner or advancing resident) in PGY1 (ranging from a mean of 2.73 to 3.19 across subcompetencies) to around 4 (ready for unsupervised practice) in PGY3 (mean of 4.00 to 4.22 across subcompetencies, P.001 for all subcompetencies). For each increase of 0.5 units in two medical knowledge (MK1, MK2) subcompetency ratings, the difference in examination scores for PGY3s was 19.5 points for MK1 (P.001) and 19.0 for MK2 (P.001).These findings provide evidence of validity of the milestones by showing how training programs have applied them over time and how milestones predict other training outcomes.

Purpose To investigate how changing to or from solo practice settings relates to maintenance of certification (MOC) exam performance. Method The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of exam pass/fail outcomes for 7,112 physicians who successfully completed their initial MOC cycle from 2000 to 2004. Initial physician MOC practice characteristics records, demographic information, and exam performance were linked with exam pass/fail outcomes from their second MOC cycle from 2006 to 2014 (5,215 physicians after attrition). Exam pass/fail outcomes for physicians' second MOC cycle were compared among four groups: those who remained in group practice across both MOC cycles, those who changed from group to solo practice, those who changed from solo to group practice, and those who remained in solo practice across both MOC cycles. Results Physicians who changed from solo to group practice performed significantly better than those who remained in solo practice (odds ratio [OR] = 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11, 2.51; P = .027). Conversely, physicians changing from group to solo practice performed significantly worse than physicians staying in group practice (OR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.80; P = .002). Meanwhile, physicians who changed from solo to group practice performed similarly to physicians remaining in group practice (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.67, 1.35; P = 0.76). Conclusions Changes in solo/group practice status were associated with second-cycle MOC exam performance. This study provides evidence that the context in which a physician practices may have an impact on their MOC exam performance.

Background and objectives Medical specialty and subspecialty fellowship programs administer subject-specific in-training examinations to provide feedback about level of medical knowledge to fellows preparing for subsequent board certification. This study evaluated the association between the American Society of Nephrology In-Training Examination and the American Board of Internal Medicine Nephrology Certification Examination in terms of scores and passing status. Design, setting, participants, & measurements The study included 1684 nephrology fellows who completed the American Society of Nephrology In-Training Examination in their second year of fellowship training between 2009 and 2014. Regression analysis examined the association between In-Training Examination and first-time Nephrology Certification Examination scores as well as passing status relative to other standardized assessments. Results This cohort included primarily men (62%) and international medical school graduates (62%), and fellows had an average age of 32 years old at the time of first completing the Nephrology Certification Examination. An overwhelming majority (89%) passed the Nephrology Certification on their first attempt. In-Training Examination scores showed the strongest association with first-time Nephrology Certification Examination scores, accounting for approximately 50% of the total explained variance in the model. Each SD increase in In-Training Examination scores was associated with a difference of 30 U (95% confidence interval, 27 to 33) in certification performance. In-Training Examination scores also were significantly associated with passing status on the Nephrology Certification Examination on the first attempt (odds ratio, 3.46 per SD difference in the In-Training Examination; 95% confidence interval, 2.68 to 4.54). An In-Training Examination threshold of 375, approximately 1 SD below the mean, yielded a positive predictive value of 0.92 and a negative predictive value of 0.50. Conclusions American Society of Nephrology In-Training Examination performance is significantly associated with American Board of Internal Medicine Nephrology Certification Examination score and passing status.

Breast cancer is a leading cause of death in the United States. Continuing medical education programs such as the American Board of Internal Medicine's Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program can increase early detection of cancers by educating physicians about the benefits of screening. Did the imposition of American Board of Internal Medicine's MOC requirement affect guideline-compliant mammography screening?To address this question, we took advantage of a natural experiment that occurred when one group of general internists was required to complete MOC by 2001 because they initially certified in 1991 (MOC required) and another group was grandfathered out of this requirement because they initially certified in 1989 (MOC grandfathers). To measure associations with the MOC requirement, we compared mammography screening in the 2 years before and the 3 years after the 2001 MOC requirement among beneficiaries treated by the MOC-required physicians and compared this difference with the same difference in mammography screening among a control group of beneficiaries treated by the MOC-grandfathered physicians.We found that the MOC requirement was associated with a regression adjusted 2.8% increase (p .001) in annual screening and 1.7% increase (p .001) in biennial screening. When we limited the sample to beneficiaries with no screening at baseline (1999 and 2000), these figures increased to 8.5% (p = .02) and 6.4% (p = .01), respectively.The MOC requirement was associated with an improvement in guideline-compliant mammography screening with the most pronounced improvements among women who were the least adherent at baseline and therefore might have benefited the most from screening.

This cross-sectional study compares the association of clinical knowledge with opioid prescribing from 2009 to 2011 when prescribing peaked nationally with 2015 to 2017 when guidelines shifted away from opioid prescribing., Key Points Question Is clinical knowledge associated with opioid prescribing and has this association changed over time? Findings In this cross-sectional study from 2009 to 2017 of 10 246 physicians, opioids were prescribed during 21.6% new onset low back pain office visits. From 2015 to 2017, opioid prescription rates were 4.6 percentage points lower in visits with physicians in the highest vs lowest quartile of performance on American Board Internal Medicine’s Maintenance of Certification examination despite there being no difference in the earlier 2009 to 2011 or 2012 to 2014 periods. Meaning These findings suggest that physicians with higher clinical knowledge scores had reduced opioid prescribing in 2015 to 2017, when guidelines were rapidly changed toward reduced opioid prescribing., Importance Opioid musculoskeletal pain overprescribing was widespread in the mid-2000s. The degree to which prescribing changed as awareness of the danger grew among physicians with different levels of clinical knowledge remains unstudied. Objective To compare the association of clinical knowledge with opioid prescribing from 2009 to 2011 when prescribing peaked nationally with 2015 to 2017 when guidelines shifted away from opioid prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study included 10 246 midcareer general internal medicine physicians in the United States who saw patients who were Medicare beneficiaries with Part D enrollment from 2009 to 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures Any opioid prescription and high dosage or long duration (HDLD) (>7 days or >50 daily morphine milligram equivalents) opioid prescriptions filled within 7 days of applicable visits for new low back pain concerns. Associations between opioid prescribing for new low back pain concerns during outpatient visits and clinical knowledge measured by prior year American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification examination performance were estimated using serial cross-sectional logit regressions. Regression covariates included yearly examination quartile (ie, knowledge quartile) interacted with 3-year group dummies (ie, early: 2009-2011; middle: 2012-2014; late: 2015-2017), state and year dummies, physician, practice, patient characteristics, and state opioid regulations. Results Of the 55 387 low back pain visits included in this study, 37 185 (67.1%) were visits with female patients, 41 978 (75.8%) were with White patients, and the mean (SE) age of patients was 76.2 (

Purpose To compare total and cause-specific mortality rates between physicians likely to have performed fluoroscopy-guided interventional (FGI) procedures (referred to as FGI MDs) and psychiatrists to determine if any differences are consistent with known radiation risks. Materials and Methods Mortality risks were compared in nationwide cohorts of 45 634 FGI MDs and 64 401 psychiatrists. Cause of death was ascertained from the National Death Index. Poisson regression was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for FGI MDs versus psychiatrists, with adjustment (via stratification) for year of birth and attained age. Results During follow-up (1979-2008), 3506 FGI MDs (86 women) and 7814 psychiatrists (507 women) died. Compared with psychiatrists, FGI MDs had lower total (men: RR, 0.80 [95% CI: 0.77, 0.83]; women: RR, 0.80 [95% CI: 0.63, 1.00]) and cancer (men: RR, 0.92 [95% CI: 0.85, 0.99]; women: RR, 0.83 [95% CI: 0.58, 1.18]) mortality. Mortality because of specific types of cancer, total and specific types of circulatory diseases, and other causes were not elevated in FGI MDs compared with psychiatrists. On the basis of small numbers, leukemia mortality was elevated among male FGI MDs who graduated from medical school before 1940 (RR, 3.86; 95% CI: 1.21, 12.3). Conclusion Overall, total deaths and deaths from specific causes were not elevated in FGI MDs compared with psychiatrists. These findings require confirmation in large cohort studies with individual doses, detailed work histories, and extended follow-up of the subjects to substantially older median age at exit. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

The American College of Cardiology In-Training Exam (ACC-ITE) is incorporated into most U.S. training programs, but its relationship to performance on the American Board of Internal Medicine Cardiovascular Disease (ABIM CVD) Certification Examination is unknown. ACC-ITE scores from third-year fellows from 2011 to 2014 (n = 1,918) were examined. Covariates for regression analyses included sex, age, medical school country, U.S. Medical Licensing Examination Step, and ABIM Internal Medicine Certification Examination scores. A secondary analysis examined fellows (n = 511) who took the ACC-ITE in the first and third years. ACC-ITE scores were the strongest predictor of ABIM CVD scores (p < 0.0001), and the most significant predictor of passing (p < 0.0001). The change in ACC-ITE scores from first to third year was a strong predictor of the ABIM CVD score (p < 0.001). The ACC-ITE is strongly associated with performance on the ABIM CVD Certification Examination.

IMPORTANCE: Increasing cardiology workforce diversity will expand the talent of the applicant pool and may reduce health care disparities. OBJECTIVE: To assess US cardiology physician workforce demographics by sex and race/ethnicity in the context of the US population and the available pipelines of trainees. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used data from the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Medical Association, and the American Board of Internal Medicine to stratify medical students, resident physicians, fellows, and cardiologists by sex and race/ethnicity. Additionally, proportional changes from 2006 through 2016 were assessed for adult and pediatric cardiology. Data analysis took place from August 2018 to January 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Percentage of cardiologists and trainees by sex and race/ethnicity in 2016, as well as changes in proportions between 2006 and 2016. RESULTS: Despite a high percentage of female internal medicine resident physicians (10 765 of 25 252 [42.6%]), female physicians were underrepresented in adult general cardiology fellowships (584 of 2720 [21.5%]) and procedural subspecialty fellowships (interventional cardiology, 30 of 305 [9.8%]; electrophysiology, 24 of 175 [13.7%]). The percentage of female adult cardiologists slightly increased from 2006 through 2016 (from 8.9% to 12.6%; slope, 0.36; P

PURPOSE 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. METHOD 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS The blueprint review garnered valuable feedback from the physician community and provided new evidence for the content validity of the Cardiovascular Disease MOC exam.

Background In certain medical specialties, board certification is associated with a lower risk of state medical board disciplinary actions. Objective The association between maintaining American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) certification and state medical disciplinary actions had not been studied. This study was undertaken to determine if maintaining ABEM certification was associated with a lower risk of disciplinary action. Methods This investigation was a historical cohort study using Cox regression. Physicians who did not have a lapse in ABEM certification were compared with physicians who had a lapse to determine the risk of disciplinary action. Lapsing was determined at the expiration of the initial certificate. This study included all physicians who obtained initial ABEM certification from 1980–2005. Additional covariates of interest included the number of attempts on the ABEM Qualifying Examination (1 vs. >1), the geographic region of the physician's residence, and the country of medical school. Results There were 23,002 physicians in the study cohort. Of these, 3370 (14.7%) let their certification lapse after initial certification. There were 701 (3.0%) physicians with disciplinary events. Lapsed physicians had higher rates of disciplinary actions than physicians who did not lapse (6.4% vs. 2.5%). ABEM-certified physicians who did not lapse were significantly less likely to be disciplined as physicians who let their certificate lapse (hazard ratio 0.50 [95% confidence interval 0.42–0.59]). Conclusions The absolute incidence of physicians with a disciplinary action in this study cohort was low (3.0%). Maintaining ABEM certification was associated with a lower risk of state medical board disciplinary actions.

This article describes the presentations and discussions at a conference co-convened by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association (AMA) and by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). The conference focused on the ABMS Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Part III Examination. This article, reflecting the conference agenda, covers the value of and evidence supporting the examination, as well as concerns about the cost of the examination, and-given the current format-its relevance. In addition, the article outlines alternative formats for the examination that four ABMS member boards are currently developing or implementing. Lastly, the article presents contrasting views on the approach to professional self-regulation. One view operationalizes MOC as a high-stakes, pass-fail process while the other perspective holds MOC as an organized approach to support continuing professional development and improvement. The authors hope to begin a conversation among the AMA, the ABMS, and other professional stakeholders about how knowledge assessment in MOC might align with the MOC program's educational and quality improvement elements and best meet the future needs of both the public and the physician community.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System requires training programs to demonstrate that fellows are achieving competence in medical knowledge (MK), as part of a global assessment of clinical competency. Passing American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) certification examinations is recognized as a metric of MK competency. This study examines several in-training MK assessment approaches and their ability to predict performance on the ABIM Hematology or Medical Oncology Certification Examinations. Results of a Hematology In-Service Examination (ISE) and an Oncology In-Training Examination (ITE), program director (PD) ratings, demographic variables, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), and ABIM Internal Medicine (IM) Certification Examination were compared. Stepwise multiple regression and logistic regression analyses evaluated these assessment approaches as predictors of performance on the Hematology or Medical Oncology Certification Examinations. Hematology ISE scores were the strongest predictor of Hematology Certification Examination scores (β = 0.41) (passing odds ratio [OR], 1.012; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.008-1.015), and the Oncology ITE scores were the strongest predictor of Medical Oncology Certification Examination scores (β = 0.45) (passing OR, 1.013; 95 % CI, 1.011-1.016). PD rating of MK was the weakest predictor of Medical Oncology Certification Examination scores (β = 0.07) and was not significantly predictive of Hematology Certification Examination scores. Hematology and Oncology ITEs are better predictors of certification examination performance than PD ratings of MK, reinforcing the effectiveness of ITEs for competency-based assessment of MK.

Objective The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Adult Rheumatology In-Training Examination (ITE) is a feedback tool designed to identify strengths and weaknesses in the content knowledge of individual fellows-in-training and the training program curricula. We determined whether scores on the ACR ITE, as well as scores on other major standardized medical examinations and competency-based ratings, could be used to predict performance on the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Rheumatology Certification Examination. Methods Between 2008 and 2012, 629 second-year fellows took the ACR ITE. Bivariate correlation analyses of assessment scores and multiple linear regression analyses were used to determine whether ABIM Rheumatology Certification Examination scores could be predicted on the basis of ACR ITE scores, United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, ABIM Internal Medicine Certification Examination scores, fellowship directors’ ratings of overall clinical competency, and demographic variables. Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether these assessments were predictive of a passing outcome on the Rheumatology Certification Examination. Results In the initial linear model, the strongest predictors of the Rheumatology Certification Examination score were the second-year fellows’ ACR ITE scores (β = 0.438) and ABIM Internal Medicine Certification Examination scores (β = 0.273). Using a stepwise model, the strongest predictors of higher scores on the Rheumatology Certification Examination were second-year fellows’ ACR ITE scores (β = 0.449) and ABIM Internal Medicine Certification Examination scores (β = 0.276). Based on the findings of logistic regression analysis, ACR ITE performance was predictive of a pass/fail outcome on the Rheumatology Certification Examination (odds ratio 1.016 [95% confidence interval 1.011–1.021]). Conclusion The predictive value of the ACR ITE score with regard to predicting performance on the Rheumatology Certification Examination supports use of the Adult Rheumatology ITE as a valid feedback tool during fellowship training.

Patients with osteoporosis can sustain fractures following falls or other minimal trauma. This risk of fracture can be reduced through appropriate diagnostic testing, pharmacologic therapy, and other readily measured standards of care. Our aim was to develop a credible clinical performance assessment to measure physicians’ quality of osteoporosis care, and determine reasonable performance standards for both competent and excellent care. This was a retrospective cohort study. Three hundred and eighty one general internists and subspecialists with time-limited board certification were included in the study. Performance rates on eight evidence-based measures were obtained from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Osteoporosis Practice Improvement Module® (PIM), a web-based tool that uses medical chart reviews to help physicians assess and improve care. We applied a patented methodology, using an adaptation of the Angoff standard-setting method and the Dunn-Rankin method, with an expert panel skilled in osteoporosis care to form a composite and establish standards for both competent and excellent care. Physician and practice characteristics, including a practice infrastructure score based on the Physician Practice Connections Readiness Survey (PPC-RS), were used to examine the validity of the inferences made from the composite scores. The mean composite score was 67.54 out of 100 maximum points with a reliability of 0.92. The standard for competent care was 46.87, and for excellent care it was 83.58. Both standards had high classification accuracies (0.95). Sixteen percent of physicians performed below the competent care standard, while 22 % met the excellent care standard. Specialists scored higher than generalists, and better practice infrastructure was associated with higher composite scores, providing some validity evidence. We developed a rigorous methodology for assessing physicians’ osteoporosis care. Clinical performance feedback relative to absolute standards of care provides physicians with a meaningful approach to self-evaluation to improve patient care.

Background: Clinical reasoning is essential for the practice of medicine. Dual process theory conceptualizes reasoning as falling into two general categories: nonanalytic reasoning (pattern recognition) and analytic reasoning (active comparing and contrasting of alternatives). The debate continues regarding how expert performance develops and how individuals make the best use of analytic and nonanalytic processes. Several investigators have identified the unexpected finding that intermediates tend to perform better on licensing examination items than experts, which has been termed the “intermediate effect.” Purpose: We explored differences between faculty and residents on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) using dual process measures (both reading and answering times) to inform this ongoing debate. Method: Faculty (board-certified internists; experts) and residents (internal medicine interns; intermediates) answered live licensing examination MCQs (U.S. Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Knowledge and American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Examination) while being timed. We conducted repeated analysis of variance to compare the 2 groups on average reading time, answering time, and accuracy on various types of items. Results: Faculty and residents did not differ significantly in reading time [F (1, 35) = 0.01, p = 0.93], answering time [F (1, 35) = 0.60, p = 0.44], or accuracy [F (1, 35) = 0.24, p = 0.63] regardless of easy or hard items. Discussion: Dual process theory was not evidenced in this study. However, this lack of difference between faculty and residents may have been affected by the small sample size of participants and MCQs may not reflect how physicians made decisions in actual practice setting.

Importance Success on the internal medicine (IM) examination is a central requirement of the American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM’s) Maintenance of Certification program (MOC). Therefore, it is important to understand the degree to which this examination reflects conditions seen in practice, one dimension of content validity, which focuses on the match between content in the discipline and the topics on the examination questions. Objective To assess whether the frequency of questions on IM-MOC examinations were concordant with the frequency of conditions seen in practice. Design, Setting, and Participants The 2010-2013 IM-MOC examinations were used to calculate the percentage of questions for 186 medical condition categories from the examination blueprint, which balances examination content by considering importance and frequency of conditions seen in practice. Nationally representative estimates of conditions seen in practice by general internists were estimated from the primary diagnosis for 13 832 office visits (2010-2013 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys) and 108 472 hospital stays (2010 National Hospital Discharge Survey). Exposures Prevalence of conditions included on the IM-MOC examination questions. Main Outcomes and Measures The outcome measure was the concordance between the percentages of IM-MOC examination questions and the percentages of conditions seen in practice during either office visits or hospital stays for each of 186 condition categories (eg, diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, liver disease). The concordance thresholds were 0.5 SD of the weighted mean percentages of the applicable 186 conditions seen in practice (0.74% for office visits; 0.51% for hospital stays). If the absolute differences between the percentages of examination questions and the percentages of office visit conditions or hospital stay conditions seen were less than the applicable concordance threshold, then the condition category was judged to be concordant. Results During the 2010-2013 IM-MOC examination periods, 3600 questions (180 questions per examination form) were administered and 3461 questions (96.1%) were mapped into the 186 study conditions (mean, 18.6 questions per condition). Comparison of the percentages of 186 categories of medical conditions seen in 13 832 office visits and 108 472 hospital stays with the percentages of 3461 questions on IM-MOC examinations revealed that 2389 examination questions (69.0%; 95% CI, 67.5%-70.6% involving 158 conditions) were categorized as concordant. For concordance between questions and office visits only, 2010 questions (58.08%; 95% CI, 56.43%-59.72% of all examination questions) involving 145 conditions were categorized as concordant. For concordance between questions and hospital stays only, 1456 questions (42.07%; 95% CI, 40.42%-43.71% of all examination questions) involving 122 conditions were categorized as concordant. Conclusions and Relevance Among questions on IM-MOC examinations from 2010-2013, 69% were concordant with conditions seen in general internal medicine practices, although some areas of discordance were identified.

Background The Infectious Diseases Society of America In-Training Examination (IDSA ITE) is a feedback tool used to help fellows track their knowledge acquisition during fellowship training. We determined whether the scores on the IDSA ITE and from other major medical knowledge assessments predict performance on the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Infectious Disease Certification Examination. Methods The sample was 1021 second-year fellows who took the IDSA ITE and ABIM Infectious Disease Certification Examination from 2008 to 2012. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine if ABIM Infectious Disease Certification Examination scores were predicted by IDSA ITE scores, prior United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, ABIM Internal Medicine Certification Examination scores, fellowship director ratings of medical knowledge, and demographic variables. Logistic regression was used to evaluate if these same assessments predicted a passing outcome on the certification examination. Results IDSA ITE scores were the strongest predictor of ABIM Infectious Disease Certification Examination scores (β = .319), followed by prior ABIM Internal Medicine Certification Examination scores (β = .258), USMLE Step 1 scores (β = .202), USMLE Step 3 scores (β = .130), and fellowship directors' medical knowledge ratings (β = .063). IDSA ITE scores were also a significant predictor of passing the Infectious Disease Certification Examination (odds ratio, 1.017 [95% confidence interval, 1.013-1.021]). Conclusions The significant relationship between the IDSA ITE score and performance on the ABIM Infectious Disease Certification Examination supports the use of the ITE as a valid feedback tool in fellowship training.

In 1995, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) formalized an integrated residency curriculum including both clinical and research training (the Research Pathway), designed to develop careers of physician-scientists. Individuals who completed Pathway training between 1995 and 2007 were surveyed to determine the extent to which graduates established research-oriented careers.In 2012, the authors used a Web-based, 56-question, multiple-choice electronic survey of 813 participants in Research Pathway programs who completed their residency training between the years of 1995 and 2007. Survey questions addressed source and type of funding, research productivity, and job title/content. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed.Forty-seven percent of solicited Pathway graduates participated in the survey. Ninety-seven percent of the respondents completed Pathway training. Ninety-one percent reported some research effort, with a group average of 58.6% of total professional effort spent in research. Seventy-two percent currently hold positions in academic medicine; 8.6% in the biomedical industry; and 2.1% in government medical service. Over 85% reported extramural research funding, with 81.4% receiving research support from federal sources. Among the variables positively correlated with the highest level of research engagement were previous graduate-level research training, any first-author publications arising from the Pathway research experience, and the receipt of extramural career development funding supporting the Pathway research.On the basis of a very high level of active research engagement reported by 385 ABIM Research Pathway graduates, this special research training track appears to be effectively meeting its goal of training biomedical scientists.

Objectives To assess the current use and application of simulators in interventional cardiology. Background Despite a paucity of data on the efficacy of simulation in medicine, cardiovascular simulation training is now a mandated part of cardiovascular fellowship training. Additionally, simulators have been endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration as a way to teach physicians new and novel procedures. We sought to establish the current use of simulators in cardiovascular medicine. Methods A systematic review was done of available training programs, and currently existing data regarding simulation training. A panel of experts was convened to review this data and provide recommendations as how simulation should be used in the field of interventional cardiology. Results This document provides a comprehensive review of the current state of simulation and how we as a society must formulate well validated studies to more closely examine and explore how this technology can be further studied and validated. Conclusions Simulation will likely take on a larger role in cardiovascular training and maintenance of certification, but at the current time lacks a large body of evidence for its use. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Current research on examination response time has focused on tests comprised of traditional multiple-choice items. Consequently, the impact of other innovative or complex item formats on examinee response time is not understood. The present study used multilevel growth modeling to investigate examinee characteristics associated with response time differences on a medical certification exam comprised of two item formats. A linear model described examinee pacing on the traditional multiple-choice section, while a quadratic or curvilinear model described pacing on a diagnostic study section comprised of complex graphic-intensive multiple-response items. Examinees’ gender, ability, and age explained variability in response times for each exam section; notably, older examinees’ initial pacing was slower on the multiple-choice section but faster on the complex graphic-intensive multiple-response section. This study has implications for test developers throughout the world who intend to incorporate complex item ...

Purpose This study extends available evidence about the relationship between scores on the Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) component of the United States Medical Licensing Examination and subsequent performance in residency. It focuses on the relationship between Step 2 CS communication and interpersonal skills scores and communication skills ratings that residency directors assign to residents in their first postgraduate year of internal medicine training. It represents the first large-scale evaluation of the extent to which Step 2 CS communication and interpersonal skills scores can be extrapolated to examinee performance in supervised practice. Method Hierarchical linear modeling techniques were used to examine the relationships among examinee characteristics, residency program characteristics, and residency-director-provided ratings. The sample comprised 6,306 examinees from 238 internal medicine residency programs who completed Step 2 CS for the first time in 2005 and received ratings during their first year of internal medicine residency training. Results Although the relationship is modest, Step 2 CS communication and interpersonal skills scores predict communication skills ratings for first-year internal medicine residents after accounting for other factors. Conclusions The results of this study make a reasonable case that Step 2 CS communication and interpersonal skills scores provide useful information for predicting the level of communication skill that examinees will display in their first year of internal medicine residency training. This finding demonstrates some level of extrapolation from the testing context to behavior in supervised practice, thus providing validity-related evidence for using Step 2 CS communication and interpersonal skills scores in high-stakes decisions.

Given the rising burden of healthcare costs, both patients and healthcare purchasers are interested in discerning which physicians deliver quality care. We proposed a methodology to assess physician clinical performance in preventive cardiology care, and determined a benchmark for minimally acceptable performance. We used data on eight evidence-based clinical measures from 811 physicians that completed the American Board of Internal Medicine's Preventive Cardiology Practice Improvement Module(SM) to form an overall composite score for preventive cardiology care. An expert panel of nine internists/cardiologists skilled in preventive care for cardiovascular disease used an adaptation of the Angoff standard-setting method and the Dunn-Rankin method to create the composite and establish a standard. Physician characteristics were used to examine the validity of the inferences made from the composite scores. The mean composite score was 73.88 % (SD = 11.88 %). Reliability of the composite was high at 0.87. Specialized cardiologists had significantly lower composite scores (P = 0.04), while physicians who reported spending more time in primary, longitudinal, and preventive consultative care had significantly higher scores (P = 0.01), providing some evidence of score validity. The panel established a standard of 47.38 % on the composite measure with high classification accuracy (0.98). Only 2.7 % of the physicians performed below the standard for minimally acceptable preventive cardiovascular disease care. Of those, 64 % (N = 14) were not general cardiologists. Our study presents a psychometrically defensible methodology for assessing physician performance in preventive cardiology while also providing relative feedback with the hope of heightening physician awareness about deficits and improving patient care.

The American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification Program (ABMS MOC) is designed to provide a comprehensive approach to physician lifelong learning, self-assessment, and quality improvement (QI) through its 4-part framework and coverage of the 6 competencies previously adopted by the ABMS and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). In this article, the theoretical rationale and exemplary empiric data regarding the MOC program and its individual parts are reviewed. The value of each part is considered in relation to 4 criteria about the relationship of the competencies addressed within that part to (1) patient outcomes, (2) physician performance, (3) validity of the assessment or educational methods utilized, and (4) learning or improvement potential. Overall, a sound theoretical rationale and a respectable evidence base exists to support the current structure and elements of the MOC program. However, it is incumbent on the ABMS and ABMS member boards to continue to examine their programs moving forward to assure the public and the profession that they are meeting expectations, are clinically relevant, and provide value to patients and participating physicians, and to refine and improve them as ongoing research indicates.

Over the past 25 years, three major forces have had a significant influence on licensure and certification: the shift in focus from educational process to educational outcomes, the increasing recognition of the need for learning and assessment throughout a physician's career, and the changes in technology and psychometrics that have opened new vistas for assessment. These forces have led to significant changes in assessment for licensure and certification. To respond to these forces, licensure and certification programs have improved the ways in which their examinations are constructed, scored, and delivered. In particular, we note the introduction of adaptive testing; automated item creation, scoring, and test assembly; assessment engineering; and data forensics. Licensure and certification programs have also expanded their repertoire of assessments with the rapid development and adoption of simulation and workplace-based assessment. Finally, they have invested in research intended to validate their programs in four ways: (a) the acceptability of the program to stakeholders, (b) the extent to which stakeholders are encouraged to learn and improve, (c) the extent to which there is a relationship between performance in the programs and external measures, and (d) the extent to which there is a relationship between performance as measured by the assessment and performance in practice. Over the past 25 years, changes in licensure and certification have been driven by the educational outcomes movement, the need for lifelong learning, and advances in technology and psychometrics. Over the next 25 years, we expect these forces to continue to exert pressure for change which will lead to additional improvement and expansion in examination processes, methods of assessment, and validation research.

Background:The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) certification and maintenance of certification (MOC) programs strive to provide the public with guidance about a physician's competence. This study summarizes the literature on the effectiveness of these programs.Method:A literature search

High-quality assessment of resident performance is needed to guide individual residents' development and ensure their preparedness to provide patient care. To facilitate this aim, reporting milestones are now required across all internal medicine (IM) residency programs.To describe initial milestone ratings for the population of IM residents by IM residency programs.Cross-sectional study.IM residency programs.All IM residents whose residency program directors submitted milestone data at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year.Ratings addressed 6 competencies and 22 subcompetencies. A rating of "not assessable" indicated insufficient information to evaluate the given subcompetency. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe ratings across competencies and training years.Data were available for all 21 774 U.S. IM residents from all 383 programs. Overall, 2889 residents (1621 in postgraduate year 1 [PGY-1], 902 in PGY-2, and 366 in PGY-3) had at least 1 subcompetency rated as not assessable. Summaries of average ratings by competency and training year showed higher ratings for PGY-3 residents in all competencies. Overall ratings for each of the 6 individual competencies showed that fewer than 1% of third-year residents were rated as "unsatisfactory" or "conditional on improvement." However, when subcompetency milestone ratings were used, 861 residents (12.8%) who successfully completed training had at least 1 competency with all corresponding subcompetencies graded below the threshold of "readiness for unsupervised practice."Data were derived from a point in time in the first reporting period in which milestones were used.The initial milestone-based evaluations of IM residents nationally suggest that documenting developmental progression of competency is possible over training years. Subcompetencies may identify areas in which residents might benefit from additional feedback and experience. Future work is needed to explore how milestones are used to support residents' development and enhance residency curricula.None.

Most trainees in combined pulmonary and critical care medicine fellowship programs complete in-service training examinations (ITEs) that test knowledge in both disciplines. Whether ITE scores predict performance on the American Board of Internal Medicine Pulmonary Disease Certification Examination and Critical Care Medicine Certification Examination is unknown.To determine whether pulmonary and critical care medicine ITE scores predict performance on subspecialty board certification examinations independently of trainee demographics, program director competency ratings, fellowship program characteristics, and prior medical knowledge assessments.First- and second-year fellows who were enrolled in the study between 2008 and 2012 completed a questionnaire encompassing demographics and fellowship training characteristics. These data and ITE scores were matched to fellows' subsequent scores on subspecialty certification examinations, program director ratings, and previous scores on their American Board of Internal Medicine Internal Medicine Certification Examination. Multiple linear regression and logistic regression were used to identify independent predictors of subspecialty certification examination scores and likelihood of passing the examinations, respectively.Of eligible fellows, 82.4% enrolled in the study. The ITE score for second-year fellows was matched to their certification examination scores, which yielded 1,484 physicians for pulmonary disease and 1,331 for critical care medicine. Second-year fellows' ITE scores (β = 0.24, P0.001) and Internal Medicine Certification Examination scores (β = 0.49, P0.001) were the strongest predictors of Pulmonary Disease Certification Examination scores, and were the only significant predictors of passing the examination (ITE odds ratio, 1.12 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.16]; Internal Medicine Certification Examination odds ratio, 1.01 [95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.02]). Similar results were obtained for predicting Critical Care Medicine Certification Examination scores and for passing the examination. The predictive value of ITE scores among first-year fellows on the subspecialty certification examinations was comparable to second-year fellows' ITE scores.The Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine ITE score is an independent, and stronger, predictor of subspecialty certification examination performance than fellow demographics, program director competency ratings, and fellowship characteristics. These findings support the use of the ITE to identify the learning needs of fellows as they work toward subspecialty board certification.

Educators in internal medicine are concerned that reducing clinical training from three years to two could negatively affect physicians' ability to provide good patient care. Physician-scientists already follow a short-track research pathway that shortens clinical training to two years. The authors examine whether this shortened training affects ability.The authors use a national sample of 101,031 physicians who took their first internal medicine certification examination between 1993 and 2008 and trained in either a traditional or research pathway. They collected data, including demographics, exam information, and maintenance of certification (MOC) return rates. They used regression models to assess the relationship between training pathway and MOC exam scores and eventual certification status, adjusting for physician characteristics.In this study, research pathway training did not adversely impact internal medicine certification status. Although the scores of physicians who followed the research pathway were slightly lower, the effect size was small. In a subset of research pathway physicians, 63% remained in academic medicine and 37% continued to spend a substantial portion of time in medical research 10 years later.Different training pathways can lead to similar achievements in clinical judgment. The educational model, competency-based rather than time-dependent, that works for research pathway physicians could be extended to other talented trainees who would benefit by customizing training to meet career goals.

Maintenance of certification examination performance is associated with quality of care. We aimed to examine relationships between electronic medical knowledge resource use, practice characteristics and examination scores among physicians recertifying in internal medicine.We conducted a cross-sectional study of 3,958 United States physicians who took the Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification Examination (IM-MOCE) between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008, and who held individual licenses to one or both of two large electronic knowledge resource programs. We examined associations between physicians' IM-MOCE scores and their days of electronic resource use, practice type (private practice, residency teaching clinic, inpatient, nursing home), practice model (single or multi-specialty), sex, age, and medical school location.In the 365 days prior to the IM-MOCE, physicians used electronic resources on a mean (SD, range) of 20.3 (36.5, 0-265) days. In multivariate analyses, the number of days of resource use was independently associated with increased IM-MOCE scores (0.07-point increase per day of use, p = 0.02). Increased age was associated with decreased IM-MOCE scores (1.8-point decrease per year of age, p 0.001). Relative to physicians working in private practice settings, physicians working in residency teaching clinics and hospital inpatient practices had higher IM-MOCE scores by 29.1 and 20.0 points, respectively (both p 0.001).Frequent use of electronic resources was associated with modestly enhanced IM-MOCE performance. Physicians involved in residency education clinics and hospital inpatient practices had higher IM-MOCE scores than physicians working in private practice settings.

PURPOSE Good clinical judgment is important to providing high-quality patient care. Keeping current in one's field is challenged by rapid advances in health care and demanding practices. Understanding the collective factors that influence a practicing physician's clinical judgment could help medical educators design improvement programs that target specific audiences. METHOD Data from two medical specialty boards, the American Board of Internal Medicine and American Board of Surgery, were used. Multiple regression analyses were conducted relating first-attempt performance on the maintenance of certification (MOC) exam with physician age, amount of continuing medical education (CME) undertaken, number of physicians in the practice, medical school type, and prior exam performance. Data were based on demographics and exam scores of 18,447 general internists and 4,961 general surgeons who took the MOC exam for the first time between 2003 and 2007. RESULTS Similar findings were obtained for general internists and surgeons. Younger physicians, those with higher scores on initial certification, physicians in group not solo practice, and U.S. medical graduates were significantly more likely to pass the MOC exam (P

Assessing physicians' clinical performance using statistically sound, evidence-based measures is challenging. Little research has focused on methodological approaches to setting performance standards to which physicians are being held accountable.Determine if a rigorous approach for setting an objective, credible standard of minimally-acceptable performance could be used for practicing physicians caring for diabetic patients.Retrospective cohort study.Nine hundred and fifty-seven physicians from the United States with time-limited certification in internal medicine or a subspecialty.The ABIM Diabetes Practice Improvement Module was used to collect data on ten clinical and two patient experience measures. A panel of eight internists/subspecialists representing essential perspectives of clinical practice applied an adaptation of the Angoff method to judge how physicians who provide minimally-acceptable care would perform on individual measures to establish performance thresholds. Panelists then rated each measure's relative importance and the Dunn-Rankin method was applied to establish scoring weights for the composite measure. Physician characteristics were used to support the standard-setting outcome.Physicians abstracted 20,131 patient charts and 18,974 patient surveys were completed. The panel established reasonable performance thresholds and importance weights, yielding a standard of 48.51 (out of 100 possible points) on the composite measure with high classification accuracy (0.98). The 38 (4%) outlier physicians who did not meet the standard had lower ratings of overall clinical competence and professional behavior/attitude from former residency program directors (p = 0.01 and p = 0.006, respectively), lower Internal Medicine certification and maintenance of certification examination scores (p = 0.005 and p0.001, respectively), and primarily worked as solo practitioners (p = 0.02).The standard-setting method yielded a credible, defensible performance standard for diabetes care based on informed judgment that resulted in a reasonable, reproducible outcome. Our method represents one approach to identifying outlier physicians for intervention to protect patients.

Objective. To investigate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of comprehensively assessing physician-level performance in ambulatory practice. Data Sources/Study Setting. Ambulatory-based general internists in 13 states participated in the assessment. Study Design. We assessed physician-level performance, adjusted for patient factors, on 46 individual measures, an overall composite measure, and composite measures for chronic, acute, and preventive care. Between- versus within-physician variation was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). External validity was assessed by correlating performance on a certification exam. Data Collection/Extraction Methods. Medical records for 236 physicians were audited for seven chronic and four acute care conditions, and six age- and gender-appropriate preventive services. Principal Findings. Performance on the individual and composite measures varied substantially within (range 5–86 percent compliance on 46 measures) and between physicians (ICC range 0.12–0.88). Reliabilities for the composite measures were robust: 0.88 for chronic care and 0.87 for preventive services. Higher certification exam scores were associated with better performance on the overall (r=0.19; p

Whether patient care is improved by physicians maintaining their American Board of Internal Medicine certification is not known. This study compared how often physicians who had maintained certific...

Purpose The U.S. health care system is not prepared to meet the needs of the increasing population of older adults. Few physicians become geriatricians, but most will care for older adults. The authors assessed the quality of care for older adults in residency clinics and physician practices. Method Using the American Board of Internal Medicine's Care of the Vulnerable Elderly practice improvement module, researchers studied the quality of care provided to older adults in 52 internal and family medicine residency clinic sites and by a motivated group of 144 practicing physicians from 2006 to 2008. They also studied the characteristics of the practice systems in the clinics and offices and the relationship between specific elements of practice systems and the quality of care. Results Patients seen by residents were younger, had fewer chronic conditions, and were less likely to receive recommended care. Residency clinic systems were less likely to have elements designed to support care for older adults. Even when present, there was little correlation with care provided. Practicing physicians were more likely to provide recommended processes of care, and system elements in their practices were more likely to function well and correlate with delivery of key processes of care, but much room for improvement remains. Conclusions Practice system elements designed to support care for older adults perform differently in residency clinics than in practicing physicians' offices. Significant gaps in the quality of care for older adults exist and are much more pronounced in the residency clinic setting.

To add to the small body of validity research addressing whether scores from performance assessments of clinical skills are related to performance in supervised patient settings, the authors examined relationships between United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) data gathering and data interpretation scores and subsequent performance in history taking and physical examination in internal medicine residency training.The sample included 6,306 examinees from 238 internal medicine residency programs who completed Step 2 CS for the first time in 2005 and whose performance ratings from their first year of residency training were available. Hierarchical linear modeling techniques were used to examine the relationships among Step 2 CS data gathering and data interpretation scores and history-taking and physical examination ratings.Step 2 CS data interpretation scores were positively related to both history-taking and physical examination ratings. Step 2 CS data gathering scores were not related to either history-taking or physical examination ratings after other USMLE scores were taken into account.Step 2 CS data interpretation scores provide useful information for predicting subsequent performance in history taking and physical examination in supervised practice and thus provide validity evidence for their intended use as an indication of readiness to enter supervised practice. The results show that there is less evidence to support the usefulness of Step 2 CS data gathering scores. This study provides important information for practitioners interested in Step 2 CS specifically or in performance assessments of medical students' clinical skills more generally.

Background— The value of American Board of Internal Medicine certification has been questioned. We evaluated the Association of Interventional Cardiology certification with in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 2010. Methods and Results— We identified physicians who performed ≥10 PCIs in 2010 in the CathPCI Registry and determined interventional cardiology (ICARD) certification status using American Board of Internal Medicine data. We compared in-hospital outcomes of patients treated by certified and noncertified physicians using hierarchical multivariable models adjusted for differences in patient characteristics and PCI volume. Primary end points were all-cause in-hospital mortality and bleeding complications. Secondary end points included emergency coronary artery bypass grafting, vascular complications, and a composite of any adverse outcome. With 510 708 PCI procedures performed by 5175 physicians, case mix and unadjusted outcomes were similar among certified and noncertified physicians. The adjusted risks of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–1.19) and emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.12–1.56) were higher in the non–ICARD-certified group, but the risks of bleeding and vascular complications and the composite end point were not statistically significantly different between groups. Conclusions— We did not observe a consistent association between ICARD certification and the outcomes of PCI procedures. Although there was a significantly higher risk of mortality and emergency coronary artery bypass grafting in patients treated by non–ICARD-certified physicians, the risks of vascular complications and bleeding were similar. Our findings suggest that ICARD certification status alone is not a strong predictor of patient outcomes and indicate a need to enhance the value of subspecialty certification.