在过渡到合格/不合格USMLE第1步后,项目主任对急诊医学住院医师选择过程的看法。

IF 1.5 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Open Access Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAEM.S389868
Kevin Bray, Kaitlin Burge, Om Patel, Ishant Yadav, William Haynes, Nicholas Van Wagoner, Charles A Khoury
{"title":"在过渡到合格/不合格USMLE第1步后,项目主任对急诊医学住院医师选择过程的看法。","authors":"Kevin Bray,&nbsp;Kaitlin Burge,&nbsp;Om Patel,&nbsp;Ishant Yadav,&nbsp;William Haynes,&nbsp;Nicholas Van Wagoner,&nbsp;Charles A Khoury","doi":"10.2147/OAEM.S389868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Beginning January 26th, 2022, the National Board of Medical Examiners transitioned scoring of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 from a 3-digit score to pass/fail. In the past, the Step 1 score has been weighted heavily by program directors (PDs) as one of the most important metrics when assessing medical student's competitiveness.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate the perceptions of emergency medicine (EM) PDs on the transition to a pass/fail USMLE Step 1 exam, and to elicit the opinions of EM PDs on the USMLE examinations' ability to predict resident performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey consisting of ranking and multiple-choice questions was sent to EM PDs. The multiple-choice questions were asked to determine EM PDs level of confidence in the ability of Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) to predict a student's ability to succeed in residency. The ranking questions focused on assessing each program's current resident selection practices in comparison to expected selection criteria changes following a transition to pass/fail Step 1. R studio and MATLAB were used for statistical analysis, and a P value <0.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey was completed by 57 (20.21%) EM PDs. When asked if Step 1 and Step 2 CK are accurate predictors of a resident's ability to perform clinically within EM, only 10.5% of PDs answered 'yes' to Step 1 being predictive, compared to 31.6% for Step 2 CK. Regarding selection criteria, the top quartile of attributes (standardized letters of evaluation [1st], away rotations [2nd], clerkship grades [3rd] and Step 2 CK score [4th]) remained the same following the transition.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results indicate that the top quartile of attributes might remain the same, despite most PDs agreeing that Step 2 CK is a better predictor of a resident's performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":45096,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/da/d9/oaem-15-15.PMC9842480.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions of the Emergency Medicine Resident Selection Process by Program Directors Following the Transition to a Pass/Fail USMLE Step 1.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Bray,&nbsp;Kaitlin Burge,&nbsp;Om Patel,&nbsp;Ishant Yadav,&nbsp;William Haynes,&nbsp;Nicholas Van Wagoner,&nbsp;Charles A Khoury\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OAEM.S389868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Beginning January 26th, 2022, the National Board of Medical Examiners transitioned scoring of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 from a 3-digit score to pass/fail. In the past, the Step 1 score has been weighted heavily by program directors (PDs) as one of the most important metrics when assessing medical student's competitiveness.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate the perceptions of emergency medicine (EM) PDs on the transition to a pass/fail USMLE Step 1 exam, and to elicit the opinions of EM PDs on the USMLE examinations' ability to predict resident performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey consisting of ranking and multiple-choice questions was sent to EM PDs. The multiple-choice questions were asked to determine EM PDs level of confidence in the ability of Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) to predict a student's ability to succeed in residency. The ranking questions focused on assessing each program's current resident selection practices in comparison to expected selection criteria changes following a transition to pass/fail Step 1. R studio and MATLAB were used for statistical analysis, and a P value <0.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey was completed by 57 (20.21%) EM PDs. When asked if Step 1 and Step 2 CK are accurate predictors of a resident's ability to perform clinically within EM, only 10.5% of PDs answered 'yes' to Step 1 being predictive, compared to 31.6% for Step 2 CK. Regarding selection criteria, the top quartile of attributes (standardized letters of evaluation [1st], away rotations [2nd], clerkship grades [3rd] and Step 2 CK score [4th]) remained the same following the transition.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results indicate that the top quartile of attributes might remain the same, despite most PDs agreeing that Step 2 CK is a better predictor of a resident's performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Access Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/da/d9/oaem-15-15.PMC9842480.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Access Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S389868\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S389868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:从2022年1月26日开始,国家医学检查委员会将美国医疗执照考试(USMLE)第一步的得分从三位数的分数过渡到通过/不通过。在过去,当评估医学生的竞争力时,第一步的分数被项目主任(pd)作为最重要的指标之一。目的:本研究的目的是评估急诊医学(EM)医师对过渡到USMLE第一步考试通过/不通过的看法,并引出急诊医学医师对USMLE考试预测住院医师表现的能力的看法。方法:采用排序问卷和选择问卷的形式对EM pd进行问卷调查。通过多项选择题来确定empd对第1步和第2步临床知识(CK)预测学生成功住院医师能力的信心水平。排名问题侧重于评估每个项目当前的住院医师选拔实践,并将其与过渡到通过/不通过第1步后预期的选拔标准变化进行比较。使用R studio和MATLAB进行统计分析,P值为P值。结果:57名EM pd(20.21%)完成了调查。当被问及步骤1和步骤2 CK是否能准确预测住院医生在EM内的临床表现时,只有10.5%的pd回答“是”,而步骤2 CK则为31.6%。在选择标准方面,属性的前四分之一(标准化评估信[1],客场轮转[2],职员等级[3]和步骤2 CK分数[4])在过渡后保持不变。结论:我们的结果表明,属性的前四分之一可能保持不变,尽管大多数pd同意步骤2 CK是一个更好的预测居民的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Perceptions of the Emergency Medicine Resident Selection Process by Program Directors Following the Transition to a Pass/Fail USMLE Step 1.

Background: Beginning January 26th, 2022, the National Board of Medical Examiners transitioned scoring of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 from a 3-digit score to pass/fail. In the past, the Step 1 score has been weighted heavily by program directors (PDs) as one of the most important metrics when assessing medical student's competitiveness.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the perceptions of emergency medicine (EM) PDs on the transition to a pass/fail USMLE Step 1 exam, and to elicit the opinions of EM PDs on the USMLE examinations' ability to predict resident performance.

Methods: A survey consisting of ranking and multiple-choice questions was sent to EM PDs. The multiple-choice questions were asked to determine EM PDs level of confidence in the ability of Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) to predict a student's ability to succeed in residency. The ranking questions focused on assessing each program's current resident selection practices in comparison to expected selection criteria changes following a transition to pass/fail Step 1. R studio and MATLAB were used for statistical analysis, and a P value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results: The survey was completed by 57 (20.21%) EM PDs. When asked if Step 1 and Step 2 CK are accurate predictors of a resident's ability to perform clinically within EM, only 10.5% of PDs answered 'yes' to Step 1 being predictive, compared to 31.6% for Step 2 CK. Regarding selection criteria, the top quartile of attributes (standardized letters of evaluation [1st], away rotations [2nd], clerkship grades [3rd] and Step 2 CK score [4th]) remained the same following the transition.

Conclusion: Our results indicate that the top quartile of attributes might remain the same, despite most PDs agreeing that Step 2 CK is a better predictor of a resident's performance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Access Emergency Medicine
Open Access Emergency Medicine EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Utility of Common Bile Duct Identification on Biliary Ultrasound in Emergency Department Patients. Effect of a Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Driven vs Standard Diagnostic Pathway on 24-Hour Hospital Stay in Emergency Department Patients with Dyspnea-Protocol for A Randomized Controlled Trial. Accuracy of FAST-ED for Assessment Large Vessel Occlusion of Acute Ischemic Stroke in Emergency Department. Prehospital Emergency Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey of First-Aid Preparedness Among Layperson First Responders in Northern Uganda. Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Alvarado Score and Abdominal Ultrasound for Acute Appendicitis: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1