Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apologies for Thinking Boards Were Logical

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CordMcNally
    replied
    Originally posted by STATscans View Post
    I’m not sure why there’s hate for boards in general. I took the radiology oral boards, passed them and moved on. It was sort of a rite of passage in some ways. It also made you study like a motherf8cker for months cause you didn’t want to look like an idiot to the examiner. Overwhelming majority did just fine.

    It seems to me, the right and responsibility to practice medicine is granted by the state, not the boards. But the states depend on the boards to sort of tell them who is competent. So having the boards is a good thing for those who want to ‘protect the turf’. Otherwise, anyone with some brain can learn to do medicine and ask the state to grant them a license. So what the process is a little vague or there is lack of transparency. Maybe it isn’t wise to let everyone in the world know the process. It isn’t like the can somehow tell just the physicians. If they tell the majority of the physicians, that’s basically telling the whole world. Just like we don’t need to know all the ‘black ops’ the government does to protect all of us.
    I think the hate is there for the same reason it's there for MoC. It's a money grab. I would argue that board transparency and government black ops aren't in the same universe.

    Leave a comment:


  • STATscans
    replied
    I’m not sure why there’s hate for boards in general. I took the radiology oral boards, passed them and moved on. It was sort of a rite of passage in some ways. It also made you study like a motherf8cker for months cause you didn’t want to look like an idiot to the examiner. Overwhelming majority did just fine.

    It seems to me, the right and responsibility to practice medicine is granted by the state, not the boards. But the states depend on the boards to sort of tell them who is competent. So having the boards is a good thing for those who want to ‘protect the turf’. Otherwise, anyone with some brain can learn to do medicine and ask the state to grant them a license. So what the process is a little vague or there is lack of transparency. Maybe it isn’t wise to let everyone in the world know the process. It isn’t like the can somehow tell just the physicians. If they tell the majority of the physicians, that’s basically telling the whole world. Just like we don’t need to know all the ‘black ops’ the government does to protect all of us.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lordosis
    replied
    Originally posted by zlandar View Post

    They will take it until a malpractice suit. Then they turn into a pumpkin who doesn’t know anything with a joke malpractice coverage. The lawyers will hone in on any docs involved including their primary because that’s where the money is.

    “Well doctor why did you allow your patient to have their mammogram interpreted by an incompetent boob?”
    Nice choice of words

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied
    It is, and worse all boards do it differently because it makes sense. In the end almost everyone who takes them passes, and it means nothing regarding practices going forward, everyone is on edge for the collection period and plays to the test so to speak...but this is the game.

    The game is of course regulatory capture.

    At least there is a transparent scoring system here, I've never even heard of such a thing, our boards barely instituted a script recently to keep examiners on track and stop them from just skewering examinees for no actual useful info and wasting time.

    Oral boards are a total farce. They sound like an appropriate thing but the correlation between passing written at some percentile score and orals is like 100%. Further, it brings into play a bunch of interpersonal dynamics that can really affect things that have zero to do with what you did.

    Our board doesnt even let someone in your own state be an examiner, cuz we cant be trusted to not sabotage the competition (and its a good rule because we cant).
    Last edited by Zaphod; 08-16-2020, 07:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • zlandar
    replied
    Originally posted by G View Post

    wow, that is a pretty big drop by organized medicine if it truly not being followed (in my specialty, we do a lot of behind the scenes stuff that doesn't make a very good story until things are either done or looking ominous). my knee jerk response was "let them take breast and the associated liability" but I know that misses the point.
    They will take it until a malpractice suit. Then they turn into a pumpkin who doesn’t know anything with a joke malpractice coverage. The lawyers will hone in on any docs involved including their primary because that’s where the money is.

    “Well doctor why did you allow your patient to have their mammogram interpreted by an incompetent boob?”

    Leave a comment:


  • Brains428
    replied
    Originally posted by G View Post
    Hm, I just skimmed the bill, but it looks to me like it is to establish independent practice for NPs, not radiology specific. Medicine (capital M) has already abdicated. I would argue that the fact CA has not is actually a resounding endorsement of physician advocacy.
    I know it's not radiology specific. I feel like that's the worst part- it's a line item that probably gets glossed over. I realize this is a common tactic from the state to federal level.

    Back to the original topic-- I guess we could all join the NBPAS.

    Leave a comment:


  • G
    replied
    Hm, I just skimmed the bill, but it looks to me like it is to establish independent practice for NPs, not radiology specific. Medicine (capital M) has already abdicated. I would argue that the fact CA has not is actually a resounding endorsement of physician advocacy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brains428
    replied
    The bill has been around, but it's pushing further every year. Here is the text (imaging is only one of the expansions, but might be the most ridiculous. Most physicians would agree medical school teaches little about imaging, let alone nursing school and associated advanced degrees)
    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201920200AB890

    The description about expansion of practice is about 3/4 down the page.

    I don't know if any of the breast imaging or surgery societies have said anything about it. Nonetheless, I do think that the board has an obligation to protect the public from incompetence, as well as the well being of the physicians they receive dues from. If they would like to simply wipe their hands of any obligation of physician advocacy, reduce fees to simply manage the testing operations and distribution of boards. There shouldn't be a 6 figure wage tied to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim
    replied
    Originally posted by G View Post

    wow, that is a pretty big drop by organized medicine if it truly not being followed (in my specialty, we do a lot of behind the scenes stuff that doesn't make a very good story until things are either done or looking ominous). my knee jerk response was "let them take breast and the associated liability" but I know that misses the point.
    Don’t think associated liability is included in the bill. Something about immunity, creative isn’t it?

    Leave a comment:


  • G
    replied
    Originally posted by Brains428 View Post
    There is currently a bill in the CA senate trying to allow NPs to read x-ray, ultrasound and mammo without supervision- the absurdity of that is a different discussion. I've heard nothing from the 3 dominant bodies in our profession, including the ABR regarding this. So, the fees are going somewhere, just not toward better testing, more transparency, and advocacy for the physicians they fleece (rant off).
    wow, that is a pretty big drop by organized medicine if it truly not being followed (in my specialty, we do a lot of behind the scenes stuff that doesn't make a very good story until things are either done or looking ominous). my knee jerk response was "let them take breast and the associated liability" but I know that misses the point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim
    replied
    No idea how C-19 will impact. They have a video of the exact set-up. One big screen controlled by a mouse in your left hand and a portable with another mouse for your right hand. Candidate on left table, two examiners with portables on the right. Examiners and candidate have access to the complete file. A bell rings and it’s go. Good luck to the candidate keeping the case on track.
    The examiners take turns finding questions to fill in the box. 18 year old comes in after seeing a ready clinic and told to see an orthopedic. Mom explains it keeps bleeding for a week. No OR available in adult, schedule the Peds OR at 7pm.
    Interrupion, why not 2 months of therapy? Check the box. Back to the case, a question about the medical history, check the box. Back to the case, next question about the literature on alternate techniques, check the box. Next question, 4 week follow up, check the box. Back to the case. They caution that the applicant has not idea how they did. The examiners May have already made up their minds and simply devoted time to filling in boxes. The bell goes off and time for the next.
    I am sure the examiners really try to accurately assess the competence. Boxes to check and documents to scan. It is unpaid, so it’s probably not completely stimulating either. Might send a bottle to her mentor for the heads up.
    Depressing. That checks a box too! At least the pass rate is around 95%.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brains428
    replied
    For radiology, it's a computer test now. There were oral boards up until my first year of radiology residency. You'd think there'd be some transparency about percentage of questions answered correctly. Nope. Just a moving percentage of people that fail.

    There is currently a bill in the CA senate trying to allow NPs to read x-ray, ultrasound and mammo without supervision- the absurdity of that is a different discussion. I've heard nothing from the 3 dominant bodies in our profession, including the ABR regarding this. So, the fees are going somewhere, just not toward better testing, more transparency, and advocacy for the physicians they fleece (rant off).

    Leave a comment:


  • G
    replied
    Originally posted by CordMcNally View Post
    At least for EM, I felt like I didn't get my money's worth on the oral boards for several 15 minute awkward encounters in a hotel room with another person (sometimes with another person sitting in the corner watching that person).
    I barely passed orals. Strange since I knew the diagnosis of each case, and feel like I can get through a typical work day without (totally) botching everything. Perhaps I got demerits for not stating that I showed up at work sober, in appropriate attire, and put on gloves before performing the rectal exam?

    In other news, I just took the ConCert a few years early. Fingers crossed that I passed; if so, it will be my last renewal.

    It is hard to wrap my mind around where the years have gone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lordosis
    replied
    No oral component for me. Just 3 days of 8 hours of computer questions

    Leave a comment:


  • CordMcNally
    replied
    At least for EM, I felt like I didn't get my money's worth on the oral boards for several 15 minute awkward encounters in a hotel room with another person (sometimes with another person sitting in the corner watching that person).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X