Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apologies for Thinking Boards Were Logical

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

  • Tim
    replied
    The only saving grace is if the two examiners take turns asking questions, scroll through the file and check the boxes and play the game. “Dang great work saving the guy’s leg in an impossible situation”. Got to find something to rate this as outstanding. Rationalization and cook the books.
    My daughter’s rant came after a discussion with a mentor that is now doing a turn as an examiner. Don’t sweat this, tie up that etc. Basically, how to play the game.
    What a bargain for only $2325, 90 day turnaround on the test results!
    Silly me. I thought was about the cases. Now I empathize with the MOC and recertification process. I have absolutely no reason to believe and other specialty would be different. Pardon my ignorance.

    Leave a comment:


  • ENT Doc
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim
    replied
    Originally posted by ACN View Post
    Welcome to the hoops of medicine.
    Rate the six faces on a scale of 1 to 10. Where do you hurt?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • ACN
    replied
    Welcome to the hoops of medicine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim
    started a topic Apologies for Thinking Boards Were Logical

    Apologies for Thinking Boards Were Logical

    I have read many comments from physicians basically trashing some pieces of the specialty boards. Most characterize it as an administrative money making machine. As a non-physician, my exposure is limited. BEFORE my daughter’s board collections were done, I was introduced to the negative sentiment. Similar to the Press Ganey patient surveys. Foolish me, I thought competence was based on the oral exam of 12 cases selected. Just a rant. Feel free to rant. Very disappointed in certification.

    1) The oral exams scoring system seems not to determine the physician skills are above, expected, below, or unacceptable. It seems to focus on attributes without weighting.
    2) Patient Reported Outcomes- required emails of patients with undefined questions.
    Short version:
    The oral exam of 12 cases seems legitimate, the scoring system seems a crock. A mechanical metric to assign a number to purely an opinion.
    Check all the boxes is seems worthless. I would rather see scoring of the cases.
    Is my impression that the certification process falls way short, wrong?
    Situational, cases are for patients 12 and over. There are orthopedic pediatric physicians. I guess under 12 doesn’t matter.


    Basically, the scoring metrics seem to be structured very generically and procedurally.
    The resulting output is a convenient score, using a Scoring Rubric for Part II (the oral exams). Attached:
    https://www.abos.org/certification/p...coring-rubric/
    What is Stage 1 and Stage 2?

    https://www.abos.org/certification/p...rted-outcomes/
    These are mandatory sent at the request of the physician. Don’t do it and you get screened out.
Working...
X