PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Specialty Boards”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Does specialty board certification influence clinical outcomes?

BACKGROUND: The public seems to crave a simplistic index of 'quality', analogous to 'The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval', for the complex endeavour of clinical medicine. The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and its member boards have purported to fill the vacuum in an effort that bears many of the earmarks of a public relations publicity campaign. The author examined the validity of the evidence touted in support of that effort. METHODS: By applying Hill's causal epidemiologic criteria and logical and statistical inference, the author evaluated: (i) published data sources consisting of the most comprehensive collection of studies yet gathered that purports to provide evidence of the relevance of board certification to clinical outcomes, a collection presented by Sharp et al. apparently with the advice and consent of ABMS, that they posited as containing 'relevant findings', to what purpose they left unspecified; and (ii) the review article of Sharp et al. RESULTS: The data that Sharp et al. presented provided no credible link between specialty board certification and outcomes or 'quality' of clinical care. Sharp et al. ignored the evidence of absent evidence they found and proposed enthusiastic but unjustified conclusions in support of specialty board certification as an index of clinical 'expertise'. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence supports the touted clinical benefit of specialty board certification. Specialists in clinical medicine and surgery are unamenable to simplistic evaluation by examination, yet specialty board certification remains an ersatz standard of doctors' clinical quality in the absence of supporting evidence.

Certification↗
PubMed1996

[A research on the importance of the clinical certificate to the medical practitioners outside the field of psychiatry. Committee on graduate education sub-committee on Feasibility of Implementing Specialty Board Certification in the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology].

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The main objectives of the research was to identify the merits and demerits of the specialty board certification system, that had been implemented in the other medical societies than the society of psychiatry in Japan. As a measure of the research, we conducted a survey by distributing questionnaires to medical institutions. The subjects of this survey included medical practitioners, other than the psychiatrists, who belong to general hospital, university hospital and the Japan Medical Association. FINDINGS: We received 228 responses out of the subjects. The findings were that 86% of the subjects have acquired the specialty board certificate, and that half of them have more than two kinds of qualifications on the average. Thus, the report suggests that the specialty board certification system have been long pervaded throughout the medical fields outside psychiatry. In addition, the subjects pointed out as the merits of the specialty board certification system that it helps to achieve the higher level of technique, and to organize and sophisticate as well as widen the knowledge of their specialty. They also reported that it contributes to instigate the life-long education and to earn identification and recognition of their specialty from other fields of medicine than their own. Fifty-three percent of the subjects acknowledged the necessity of the specialty board certification system while 13% regarded it unnecessary. This result proves that, despite higher percentage of the doctors with qualifications, the system itself is not approved of with full acknowledgement in the medical world. This rather negative attitudes toward the system is originated in the fact that acquiring and maintaining the certificate, i.e., renewal fees, are considerably high. In fact, as many as 62% of the subjects felt these points as disadvantages of the system. The medical practitioners outside the fields of psychiatry did not show any particular concern about the lack of the specialty board certification system in our field that is distinct as a field of medicine. Only 18% of the subjects expressed that urgent actualization of the system is desirable in our fields. In addition, securing the cites required for learning the technique and giving the exam to the applicants is the most important matter to be concerned. On the contrary, in other fields of medicine, the matter does not need to be discussed. Therefore, this is a problem unique to the fields of psychiatry. CONCLUSION: Although there are disadvantage of the specialty board certification system pointed out as shown above, we believe that it is necessary to introduce the system in the field of psychiatry. These disadvantage are mainly the matter of individual income. We need to consider the introduction of the system from the perspective of sophisticating the quality of psychiatry as a field of medicine in our country. We, the Subcommittee on feasibility of implementing specialty board certification in the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology have been contemplating over the system up to this moment. The progress has been made to the point of presenting, Discussion of the Specialty Board Certification System in Psychiatry, Yamauchi, May, 1994.

Certification↗
PubMed2002

Specialty board certification and clinical outcomes: the missing link.

PURPOSE: Specialty board certification status is often used as a standard of excellence, but no systematic review has examined the link between certification and clinical outcomes. The authors evaluated published studies tracking clinical outcomes and certification status. METHOD: Data sources consisted of studies cited between 1966 and July 1999 in OVID-Medline, psychological abstracts (PsycLit), and the Educational Research Information Clearinghouse (ERIC). Screening criteria included: only U.S. patients and physicians used as subjects; verified specialty board certification status by an American Board of Medical Specialties' (ABMS') member board using the ABMS database or derivative sources; described selection criteria for patients and physicians; selected nationally recognized standards of care for outcomes; and nested patient data by individual physician. The computerized searches that were conducted in 1999 identified 1,204 papers; one author and a research assistant selected 237 papers based on subject relevance, and reduced the list to 56 based on study quality. The authors independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify 13 of the 56 papers containing 33 separable relevant findings. RESULTS: Of the 33 findings, 16 demonstrated a significant positive association between certification status and positive clinical outcomes, three revealed worse outcomes for certified physicians, and 14 showed no association. Three negative findings and one finding of no association were identified in two papers with insufficient case-mix adjustments in the analyses. Meta-analytic statistics were not feasible due to variability in outcome measures across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Few published studies (5%) used research methods appropriate for the research question, and among the screened studies more than half support an association between board certification status and positive clinical outcomes.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1990

Board certification: an index to the specialty boards.

Here are answers to the most often-asked questions regarding how to take the Boards, including exam dates, general requirements, application deadlines, exam topics, pass/fail rates, fees, and where to call or write for further information on your chosen specialty.

Certification↗
PubMed2006

Which U.S. medical graduates plan to become specialty-board certified? Analysis of the 1997-2004 national association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire database.

BACKGROUND: Predictors of U.S. allopathic medical-school graduates' board-certification plans have not been characterized. METHOD: Using multivariable logistic regression, graduates' responses to 11 questions on the 1997-2004 Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire were analyzed to identify independent predictors of plans for specialty-board certification. RESULTS: The proportion of 108,408 graduates planning specialty-board certification decreased from 97.3% in 1997 to 88.4% in 2004. Among 101,805 (93.9%) graduates with complete data, graduates who were Hispanic, rated their clinical clerkships, quality of medical education, and confidence in clinical skills more highly, had any debt, and planned "University-faculty" careers were more likely to plan becoming board certified. Females, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and graduates who planned to practice in underserved areas, planned "other" nonclinical-practice careers, and graduated with MD/other (non-PhD) degrees were less likely to plan becoming board certified. CONCLUSION: Specialty-board certification does not appear to be among the professional goals for a growing proportion of U.S. medical graduates.

Career Choice↗
PubMed2006

Educational commission for foreign medical graduates certification and specialty board certification among graduates of the Caribbean medical schools.

BACKGROUND: To determine the variability among Caribbean medical schools in the performance of their students against markers of quality. METHOD: The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) database and the American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile were linked. Analyses were restricted to ECFMG applicants, from 1980 to 2000, who attended the 12 Caribbean medical schools that produced 200 or more U.S. International Medical School Graduates (USIMGs). RESULTS: The schools produced 17,049 USIMG (48% of all USIMGs) and 5,840 non-USIMG (5% of all non-USIMGs) applicants for ECFMG certification. By school, the ECFMG certification rate ranged from 28% to 86% for USIMGs and from 27% to 82% for non-USIMGs. Specialty Board certification for graduates of these schools also varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools in the Caribbean play an increasingly important role in supplying the U.S. workforce. There is considerable variability among them, both in the numbers of physicians they produce and the performance of their students against indicators of quality such as ECFMG and specialty Board certification.

Certification↗
PubMed1976

Specialties and the specialty boards.

As specialism has developed in the United States, multiple specialty societies and specialty boards have been created. Although they, in a very realistic fashion, have established the general standards for the delivery of specialty care and for graduate medical education, they, with other national medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Hospital Association, function with a considerable degree of independence. There is lacking a cohesive and integrated effort to develop unified attitudes, postures, and policies that represent the medical profession and the health care industry in general. Recently the Coordinating Council on Medical Education and the Liaison Committee on Graduate Medical Education have been established. These two agencies represent a significant attempt to integrate policies for medical education and to identify a single accrediting agency that will apply uniform standards to the process of accrediting programs of graduate medical education. The federal government for the past several years has had an increasing interest in the health care industry and medical education. Many legislative bills have been passed which have imposed more and more regulations on medicine and have established more bureaucratic control over the professional activities of physicians. Insidiously the medical profession is being socialized. If accountability for the public welfare cannot be exercised by medicine, at least in the perspective of the federal government, more and more legislation and regulation are inevitable. The pluralistic structure of organized medicine will ultimately be self defeating. Cohesive policies on behalf of the medical profession must be developed if leadership in medicine is to remain in the private sector. The Coordinating Council on Medical Education is unquestionably a significant attempt to demonstrate public accountability. It is, however, only the first step in the long and difficult process of developing cohesive national policies on behalf of organized medicine.

Humans↗
PubMed1978

Specialty board certification rates. A longitudinal tracking study of US medical school graduates.

This study is follow-up analysis of increments in specialty board certification rates occurring between 1971 and 1976 for 2,046 physicians who graduated in 1960, 1964, and 1968. Data obtained at 8-, 12-, and 16-year intervals following graduation from medical school indicate that it is not until 12 years' following receipt of the MD degree that most physicians will have entered the certification process or be certified. An additional increment is found 16 years following graduation. At eight and 12 years following graduation, the more recent graduates showed a much higher rate of board certification than earlier graduates at a comparable interval following graduation. Of the total study population, 81% are either board certified or in the certification process. When two essentially office-based specialties are excluded, 92% of the study population have formally entered the certification process.

Certification↗
PubMed2005

Specialty board certification among U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen graduates of international medical schools.

BACKGROUND: Graduates of international medical schools (IMGs) make up approximately one-quarter of the physician population and play a key role in the provision of health care in the United States. This study investigated whether they differ from U.S. medical graduates (USMGs) in specialty board certification. METHOD: The study compared USMGs, U.S. citizen IMGs (USIMGs), and non-U.S. citizen IMGs (non-USIMGs) who graduated from medical school between 1958 and 1994 and were involved in direct patient care in 2003. RESULTS: There is variability among the specialties, but overall USMGs have the highest specialty certification rates followed by non-USIMGs, and USIMGs. Among recent medical school graduates, non-USIMGs have certification rates that are comparable to USMGs. CONCLUSIONS: IMGs have lower board-certification rates than USMGs, although a sizeable majority has achieved board certification in the specialty they practice. There are differences between non-USIMGs and USIMGs, with the former more likely to become board certified.

Certification↗