PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 327956

Guilds, boards, and hobgoblins.

Abstract

The American specialty board system is viewed in the historical perspective of a quest for quality assessment of surgical trainees. Beginning with the American Board for Ophthalmic Examinations in 1916, a system of 22 boards has developed which, by their training requirements and examinations, essentially dictate the length and content of all postgraduate educational programs. The time has come for the boards, as a powerful force in postgraduate education and in organized medicine, to reassess their position and to be sensitive to the responsibilities they have for the future. The events of history suggest six changes that might be profitable. (1) Recognize their purpose to be broader than the administration of certifying examinations. (2) Recognize that the certificate is now a license, and deal squarely with this issue. (3) Initiate and support needed medical reforms while the private sector can still do so. (4) Assume a leadership role in the shaping and future direction of graduate medical education. (5) Relinquish a degree of autonomy in order to strengthen the American Board of Medical Specialties. (6) Define their place in the medical scene and reorganize their board structures accordingly. The primary responsibility of the boards should be to make certain all aspects of resident training in approved programs are sound. Long-range goals should be the elimination of the certifying examination, and public recognition and approval of specialty status attainment.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T B Ferguson. 1977. Guilds, boards, and hobgoblins.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(10)64562-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine whether the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO OGS) can be assessed accurately from digital dental casts and whether there are statistical differences between digital and plaster dental casts in scoring the ABO OGS. METHODS: Thirty posttreatment plaster dental casts were selected and scanned by OrthoCAD (Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ) to produce 30 corresponding digital dental casts. The plaster and digital casts were compared by using the criteria of the ABO OGS. Because the data were ordinal, a nonparametic statistical analysis was used. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon test for paired samples showed significant differences between the plaster and digital casts for occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and total scores (P <.05). No significant differences were found for alignment, marginal ridges, overjet, and interproximal contacts. Buccolingual inclination was not included in this study because of inability to perform proper measurements with the OrthoCAD program. Mean differences of points deducted ranged from .03 point for marginal ridges to 5.07 points for the total score. The variable with the most points deducted related to occlusal relationships, and the fewest points were deducted for interproximal contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the current OrthoCAD program (version 2.2) was not adequate for scoring all parameters as required by the ABO OGS.

Certification↗