Dataset Information

Mandated State Medical Licensing Board Disclosures Regarding Resident Performance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

State medical licensing boards ask program directors (PDs) to complete verification of training (VOT) forms for licensure. While residency programs use Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies, there is no uniform process or set of metrics that licensing boards use to ascertain if academic competency was achieved.

Objective

We determined the performance metrics PDs are required to disclose on state licensing VOT forms.

Methods

VOT forms for allopathic medical licensing boards for all 50 states, Washington, DC, and 5 US territories were obtained via online search and reviewed. Questions were categorized by disciplinary action (investigated, disciplined, placed on probation, expelled, terminated); documents placed on file; resident actions (leave of absence, request for transfer, unexcused absences); and non-disciplinary actions (remediation, partial or no credit, non-renewal, non-promotion, extra training required). Three individuals reviewed all forms independently, compared results, and jointly resolved discrepancies. A fourth independent reviewer confirmed all results.

Results

Most states and territories (45 of 56) accept the Federation Credentials Verification Service (FCVS), but 33 states have their own VOT forms. Ten states require FCVS use. Most states ask questions regarding probation (43), disciplinary action (41), and investigation (37). Thirty-four states and territories ask about documents placed on file, 36 ask about resident actions, and 7 ask about non-disciplinary actions. Eight states' VOT forms ask no questions regarding resident performance.

Conclusions

Among the states and territories, there is great variability in VOT forms required for allopathic physicians. These forms focus on disciplinary actions and do not ask questions PDs use to assess resident performance.

SUBMITTER: Murano T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6570450 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mandated State Medical Licensing Board Disclosures Regarding Resident Performance.

Murano Tiffany T Gajewski Michal M Anana Michael M Hillen Machteld M Kunac Anastasia A Matassa Daniel D Pompeo Lisa L Kothari Neil N

Journal of graduate medical education 20190601 3

<h4>Background</h4>State medical licensing boards ask program directors (PDs) to complete verification of training (VOT) forms for licensure. While residency programs use Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies, there is no uniform process or set of metrics that licensing boards use to ascertain if academic competency was achieved.<h4>Objective</h4>We determined the performance metrics PDs are required to disclose on state licensing VOT forms.<h4>Methods</h4>VOT fo ...[more]

PMID: 31210862

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn March 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic noncancer pain. In response, in April 2016, the North Carolina Medical Board launched the Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative, an investigative program intended to limit the overprescribing of opioids. This study focuses on the association of the Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative with immediate and sustained changes in opioid prescribing among all patients who received opioid and opioid discontinuation and tapering among patients who received high-dose (>90 milligrams of morphine equivalents), long-term (>90 days) opioid therapy.MethodsControlled and single interrupted time series analysis of opioid prescribing outcomes before and after the implementation of Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative was conducted using deidentified data from the North Carolina Controlled Substances Reporting System from January 2010 through March 2017. Analysis was conducted in 2019-2020.ResultsIn an average study month, 513,717 patients, including patients who received 47,842 high-dose, long-term opioid therapy, received 660,912 opioid prescriptions at 1.3 prescriptions per patient. There was a 0.52% absolute decline (95% CI= -0.87, -0.19) in patients receiving opioid prescriptions in the month after Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation. Abrupt discontinuation, rapid tapering, and gradual tapering of opioids among patients who received high-dose, long-term opioid therapy increased by 1% (95% CI= -0.22, 2.23), 2.2% (95% CI=0.91, 3.47), and 1.3% (95% CI=0.96, 1.57), respectively, in the month after Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation.ConclusionsAlthough Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation was associated with an immediate decline in overall opioid prescribing, it was also associated with an unintended immediate increase in discontinuations and rapid tapering among patients who received high-dose, long-term opioid therapy. Better policy communication and prescriber education regarding opioid tapering best practices may help mitigate unintended consequences of statewide policies.

Project description:ObjectiveThe research sought to ascertain medical and dental libraries' collection development policies, evaluation methods, purchase decisions, and issues that relate to print and electronic United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) preparation materials.MethodsThe investigators surveyed librarians supporting American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC)-accredited medical schools (n = 58/125) on the USMLE and librarians supporting American Dental Association (ADA)-accredited dental schools (n = 23/56) on the NBDE. The investigators analyzed the data by cross-tabulating and filtering the results using EFM Continuum web survey software. Investigators also surveyed print and electronic USMLE and NBDE preparation materials from 2004-2007 to determine the number of publications and existence of reviews.ResultsA majority of responding AAMC libraries (62%, n = 58) provide at least 1 electronic or online USMLE preparation resource and buy an average of 11.6 print USMLE titles annually. Due to a paucity of NBDE print and electronic resources, ADA libraries bought significantly fewer print resources, and only 1 subscribed to an electronic resource. The most often reported evaluation methods for both populations were feedback from medical or dental students, feedback from medical or dental faculty, and online trials. Some AAMC (10%, n = 58) and ADA libraries (39%, n = 23) libraries reported that no evaluation of these materials occured at their libraries.ConclusionsFrom 2004-2007, publishers produced 45 USMLE preparation resources (total n = 546) to every 1 NBDE preparation resource (total n = 12). Users' needs, institutional missions and goals, financial status, and official collection policies most often underlie decisions to collect or not collect examination preparation materials. Evaluating the quality of examination preparation materials can be problematic due to lack of published reviews, lack of usability testing by libraries, and librarians' and library users' unfamiliarity with the actual content of examinations. Libraries must integrate faculty and students into the purchase process to make sure examination preparation resources of the highest quality are purchased.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past 2 years, researchers have used various medical licensing examinations to test whether ChatGPT (OpenAI) possesses accurate medical knowledge. The performance of each version of ChatGPT on the medical licensing examination in multiple environments showed remarkable differences. At this stage, there is still a lack of a comprehensive understanding of the variability in ChatGPT's performance on different medical licensing examinations.ObjectiveIn this study, we reviewed all studies on ChatGPT performance in medical licensing examinations up to March 2024. This review aims to contribute to the evolving discourse on artificial intelligence (AI) in medical education by providing a comprehensive analysis of the performance of ChatGPT in various environments. The insights gained from this systematic review will guide educators, policymakers, and technical experts to effectively and judiciously use AI in medical education.MethodsWe searched the literature published between January 1, 2022, and March 29, 2024, by searching query strings in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. Two authors screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and independently assessed the quality of the literature concerning Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. We conducted both qualitative and quantitative analyses.ResultsA total of 45 studies on the performance of different versions of ChatGPT in medical licensing examinations were included in this study. GPT-4 achieved an overall accuracy rate of 81% (95% CI 78-84; P<.01), significantly surpassing the 58% (95% CI 53-63; P<.01) accuracy rate of GPT-3.5. GPT-4 passed the medical examinations in 26 of 29 cases, outperforming the average scores of medical students in 13 of 17 cases. Translating the examination questions into English improved GPT-3.5's performance but did not affect GPT-4. GPT-3.5 showed no difference in performance between examinations from English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries (P=.72), but GPT-4 performed better on examinations from English-speaking countries significantly (P=.02). Any type of prompt could significantly improve GPT-3.5's (P=.03) and GPT-4's (P<.01) performance. GPT-3.5 performed better on short-text questions than on long-text questions. The difficulty of the questions affected the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. In image-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs), ChatGPT's accuracy rate ranges from 13.1% to 100%. ChatGPT performed significantly worse on open-ended questions than on MCQs.ConclusionsGPT-4 demonstrates considerable potential for future use in medical education. However, due to its insufficient accuracy, inconsistent performance, and the challenges posed by differing medical policies and knowledge across countries, GPT-4 is not yet suitable for use in medical education.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024506687; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=506687.

Dataset Information

Mandated State Medical Licensing Board Disclosures Regarding Resident Performance.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Mandated State Medical Licensing Board Disclosures Regarding Resident Performance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets