Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A Comparative Review of Oral Board Delivery Across Procedural Disciplines.
Schoenfeld, Daniel; Lemack, Gary E; Badalato, Gina M.
Afiliação
  • Schoenfeld D; Department of Urology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: ds3756@cumc.columbia.edu.
  • Lemack GE; Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
  • Badalato GM; Department of Urology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
J Surg Educ ; 81(6): 866-871, 2024 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38658310
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Despite its ubiquity in the certification process among surgical specialties, there is little data regarding oral board delivery across various procedural fields. In this study we sought to determine the specifics of oral board exam administration across surgical disciplines with the goal of highlighting common practices, differences, and areas of innovation. This comparative analysis might further serve to identify unifying principles that undergird the oral board examination process across specialties.

DESIGN:

A standardized questionnaire was developed that included domains of exam structure/administration, content development, exam prerequisites, information about examiners, scoring, pass/failure rates, and emerging technologies. Between December 2022 and February 2023 structured interviews were conducted to discuss specifics of various oral board exams. Interview answers were compared between various specialties to extrapolate themes and to highlight innovative or emerging techniques among individual boards.

SETTING:

Interviews were conducted virtually.

PARTICIPANTS:

Executive members of 9 procedural medical boards including anesthesiology, neurosurgery, obstetrics, and gynecology, ophthalmology, orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, plastic surgery, general surgery, and urology

RESULTS:

Common themes include assessment of pre-, intra- and postoperative care; all testing involved candidate examination by multiple examiners and psychometricians were used by all organizations. Important differences included virtual versus in person administration (3 out of 9), inclusion and discussion of candidates' case logs as part of the exam (4 out of 9), formal assessment of professionalism (4 out of 9), and inclusion of an objective structured clinical examination (2 out of 9).

CONCLUSIONS:

While there are common themes and practices in the oral board delivery process between various surgical fields, and important differences continue to exist. Ongoing efforts to standardize exam administration and determine best practices are needed to ensure oral board exams continue to effectively establish that candidates meet the qualifications required for board certification.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Especialidades Cirúrgicas / Conselhos de Especialidade Profissional Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: J Surg Educ Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Especialidades Cirúrgicas / Conselhos de Especialidade Profissional Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: J Surg Educ Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article