公开的委员会评分报告破坏了住院医师遴选的整体审查。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of General Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1007/s11606-024-09133-7
Matthew Kelleher, Daniel J Schumacher, Christine Zhou, Derek Kwakye, Sally A Santen, Eric Warm, Benjamin Kinnear
{"title":"公开的委员会评分报告破坏了住院医师遴选的整体审查。","authors":"Matthew Kelleher, Daniel J Schumacher, Christine Zhou, Derek Kwakye, Sally A Santen, Eric Warm, Benjamin Kinnear","doi":"10.1007/s11606-024-09133-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Holistic review has become the gold standard for residency selection. As a result, many programs are de-emphasizing standardized exam scores and other normative metrics. However, if standardized exam scores predict passing of an initial certifying exam, this may lead to an increase in board failure rates within specific residency training programs who do not emphasize test scores on entry. Currently, the board pass rates of residency programs from many of the American Board of Medical Subspecialities (ABMS) are publicly reported as a rolling average. In theory, this should create accountability but may also create pressure and distort the way residency program selects applicants. The risk to programs of having a lower board pass rate publicly reported incentivizes programs to focus increasingly on standardized test scores, threatening holistic review. All programs do not recruit students entering residency with an identical chance of passing boards. Therefore, we believe the ABMS member boards should stop publicly reporting raw certifying exam rates above a certain threshold for normative comparison. We strongly encourage the use of learning analytics to create a residency \"expected board pass rate\" that would be a better metric for program evaluation and accreditation.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public Board Score Reporting Undermines Holistic Review for Residency Selection.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Kelleher, Daniel J Schumacher, Christine Zhou, Derek Kwakye, Sally A Santen, Eric Warm, Benjamin Kinnear\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11606-024-09133-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Holistic review has become the gold standard for residency selection. As a result, many programs are de-emphasizing standardized exam scores and other normative metrics. However, if standardized exam scores predict passing of an initial certifying exam, this may lead to an increase in board failure rates within specific residency training programs who do not emphasize test scores on entry. Currently, the board pass rates of residency programs from many of the American Board of Medical Subspecialities (ABMS) are publicly reported as a rolling average. In theory, this should create accountability but may also create pressure and distort the way residency program selects applicants. The risk to programs of having a lower board pass rate publicly reported incentivizes programs to focus increasingly on standardized test scores, threatening holistic review. All programs do not recruit students entering residency with an identical chance of passing boards. Therefore, we believe the ABMS member boards should stop publicly reporting raw certifying exam rates above a certain threshold for normative comparison. We strongly encourage the use of learning analytics to create a residency \\\"expected board pass rate\\\" that would be a better metric for program evaluation and accreditation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09133-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09133-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全面审查已成为住院医师遴选的黄金标准。因此,许多项目不再强调标准化考试分数和其他规范性指标。然而,如果标准化考试分数能预测初次认证考试的通过率,那么这可能会导致不强调入学考试分数的特定住院医师培训项目的考试不及格率上升。目前,许多美国医学分科委员会(ABMS)住院医师培训项目的委员会通过率都是以滚动平均值的形式公开报告的。从理论上讲,这应该会产生责任感,但也可能会产生压力,扭曲住院医师培训项目选择申请人的方式。由于公开报告的住院医师考试通过率较低会给项目带来风险,这就促使项目越来越重视标准化考试成绩,从而威胁到整体审查。并不是所有项目在招收住院医师时,学生通过住院医师考试的几率都是一样的。因此,我们认为 ABMS 成员委员会应停止公开报告超过一定阈值的原始认证考试通过率,以便进行常模比较。我们强烈鼓励使用学习分析来创建住院医师的 "预期委员会通过率",这将成为项目评估和评审的更好指标。
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
Public Board Score Reporting Undermines Holistic Review for Residency Selection.

Holistic review has become the gold standard for residency selection. As a result, many programs are de-emphasizing standardized exam scores and other normative metrics. However, if standardized exam scores predict passing of an initial certifying exam, this may lead to an increase in board failure rates within specific residency training programs who do not emphasize test scores on entry. Currently, the board pass rates of residency programs from many of the American Board of Medical Subspecialities (ABMS) are publicly reported as a rolling average. In theory, this should create accountability but may also create pressure and distort the way residency program selects applicants. The risk to programs of having a lower board pass rate publicly reported incentivizes programs to focus increasingly on standardized test scores, threatening holistic review. All programs do not recruit students entering residency with an identical chance of passing boards. Therefore, we believe the ABMS member boards should stop publicly reporting raw certifying exam rates above a certain threshold for normative comparison. We strongly encourage the use of learning analytics to create a residency "expected board pass rate" that would be a better metric for program evaluation and accreditation.

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
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.
期刊最新文献
Discussing Weight with Patients in Primary Care in Australia: A Mixed Methods Experimental Study. Association of Observation Stays with Clinical Outcomes and Costs in Medicare: An Instrumental Variable Analysis. The Master Adaptive Clinician Educator: A Framework for Future Educational Leaders in Academic Medicine. Empagliflozin in Diuretic-Refractory Ascites (DRAin-Em): Results of a Single-Center Feasibility Study. Effectiveness of a Novel Global Telemedicine Curriculum for Medical Students.
×
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