Medical Knowledge Assessment by Hematology and Medical Oncology In-Training Examinations Are Better Than Program Director Assessments at Predicting Subspecialty Certification Examination Performance.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System requires training programs to demonstrate that fellows are achieving competence in medical knowledge (MK), as part of a global assessment of clinical competency. Passing American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) certification examinations is recognized as a metric of MK competency. This study examines several in-training MK assessment approaches and their ability to predict performance on the ABIM Hematology or Medical Oncology Certification Examinations. Results of a Hematology In-Service Examination (ISE) and an Oncology In-Training Examination (ITE), program director (PD) ratings, demographic variables, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), and ABIM Internal Medicine (IM) Certification Examination were compared. Stepwise multiple regression and logistic regression analyses evaluated these assessment approaches as predictors of performance on the Hematology or Medical Oncology Certification Examinations. Hematology ISE scores were the strongest predictor of Hematology Certification Examination scores (ß = 0.41) (passing odds ratio [OR], 1.012; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.008-1.015), and the Oncology ITE scores were the strongest predictor of Medical Oncology Certification Examination scores (ß = 0.45) (passing OR, 1.013; 95 % CI, 1.011-1.016). PD rating of MK was the weakest predictor of Medical Oncology Certification Examination scores (ß = 0.07) and was not significantly predictive of Hematology Certification Examination scores. Hematology and Oncology ITEs are better predictors of certification examination performance than PD ratings of MK, reinforcing the effectiveness of ITEs for competency-based assessment of MK.

Clinic systems and the quality of care for older adults in residency clinics and in physician practices.

PURPOSE: The U.S. health care system is not prepared to meet the needs of the increasing population of older adults. Few physicians become geriatricians, but most will care for older adults. The authors assessed the quality of care for older adults in residency clinics and physician practices. METHOD: Using the American Board of Internal Medicine's Care of the Vulnerable Elderly practice improvement module, researchers studied the quality of care provided to older adults in 52 internal and family medicine residency clinic sites and by a motivated group of 144 practicing physicians from 2006 to 2008. They also studied the characteristics of the practice systems in the clinics and offices and the relationship between specific elements of practice systems and the quality of care. RESULTS: Patients seen by residents were younger, had fewer chronic conditions, and were less likely to receive recommended care. Residency clinic systems were less likely to have elements designed to support care for older adults. Even when present, there was little correlation with care provided. Practicing physicians were more likely to provide recommended processes of care, and system elements in their practices were more likely to function well and correlate with delivery of key processes of care, but much room for improvement remains. CONCLUSIONS: Practice system elements designed to support care for older adults perform differently in residency clinics than in practicing physicians' offices. Significant gaps in the quality of care for older adults exist and are much more pronounced in the residency clinic setting.