US Medical Licensing Exam Performance and American Board of Surgery Qualifying and Certifying Examinations.

BACKGROUND: Program directors use US Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) scores as criteria for ranking applicants. First-time pass rates of the American Board of Surgery (ABS) Qualifying (QE) and Certifying (CE) Examinations have become important measures of residency program quality. USMLE Step 1 will become pass/fail in 2022. STUDY DESIGN: American Board of Surgery QE and CE success rates were assessed considering multiple characteristics of highly ranked (top 20) applicants to 22 general surgery programs in 2011. Chi-square, t-test, Wilcoxon Rank sum, linear and logistic regression were used, as appropriate. RESULTS: The QE and CE first attempt pass rates were 96% (235/244) and 86% (190/221), respectively. QE/CE success was not significantly associated with sex, race, research experience, or publications. Alpha Omega Alpha (AΩA) status was associated with success on the index CE (98% vs 83%; p = 0.008). Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores of surgeons who passed QE on their first attempt were higher than scores of those who failed (Step 1: 233 vs 218; p = 0.016); (Step 2CK: 244 vs 228, p = 0.009). For every 10-point increase in Step 1 and 2CK scores, the odds of passing CE on the first attempt increased 1.5 times (95% CI 1.12, 2.0; p = 0.006) and 1.5 times (95% CI 1.11, 2.02, p = 0.008), respectively. For every 10-point increase in Steps 1 and 2CK scores, the odds of passing the QE on the first attempt increased 1.85 times (95% CI 1.11, 3.09; p = 0.018) and 1.86 times (95% CI 1.14, 3.06, p = 0.013), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK examination scores correlate with American Board of Surgery QE and CE performance and success. The USMLE decision to transition Step 1 to a pass/fail examination will require program directors to identify other factors that predict ABS performance for ranking applicants.

The Legacy of 1987 Boreali v. Axelrod: Board of Health Rule-Making Under Siege.

We explore how a 1987 New York State court decision-Boreali v. Axelrod-affected public health rule-making nationally and, with considerable impact, locally in New York City (NYC).We discuss the history of the origin of the NYC Board of Health (BOH), and establish that legislatures can be challenging venues in which to enact public health-related laws. We describe how, as the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene began to tackle modern public health problems (e.g., chronic diseases caused by food and tobacco), the regulatory power of its BOH was challenged.In an era when industry funds political causes and candidates, the weakening of the independence of rule-making boards of health, such as the NYC BOH, might result in illness and death.

[Cases from the expert commission of the North Rhine medical council: expert commissions and arbitration boards by medical councils]. / Fälle aus der Gutachterkommission der Ärztekammer Nordrhein : Gutachterkommissionen und Schlichtungsstellen bei den Ärztekammern.

Following a description of the structure and function of the expert commission for medical malpractice of the North Rhine medical council, important legal technical terms and the consequences, such as the definition of accusable medical malpractice and severe (in legal terms gross) negligence will be presented. The article reports on the legal consequences of the lack of informed consent, on the significance of insufficient informed consent and under which conditions a transfer of liability becomes valid. From the statistical information in the archives of the expert commission it can be seen that in processes against urologists approximately 31% of urologists in private practice were affected compared to 69% of hospital urologists. Approximately 20% involved accusations of false diagnosis and 80% involved accusations of false treatment. Of the processes involving urological diagnostic errors prostate cancer was at the forefront, followed by processes involving delayed or falsely diagnosed bladder cancer. For processes due to operative treatment errors prostate cancer also occupied first place, followed by accusations of treatment errors involving penile and urethral operations. A differentiated presentation of processes involving non-operative treatment errors revealed an accumulation of accusations for mistakes in the treatment of urolithiasis, in medicinal treatment and also in tumor therapy. Following a description of typical individual cases, indications for avoidance of legal proceedings will be given.

[From medical complication to compensation for the prejudice]. / De la complication médicale à l'indemnisation du préjudice.

Claims in anesthesia and intensive care remains high, despite the reduction of morbidity and mortality associated with this activity. The absence of a national register makes it difficult to quantify. The Medical Committee of MACSF-Sou Medical Group, professional liability insurer of more than half of French physicians, provided us support. The amount of compensation paid is growing and the scope of compensated damage is expanded by the Dintilhac mission. The Act of March 4, 2002 has fully confirmed the principle of medical liability for misconduct. Generally, compensation for bodily injury is based on the demonstration of a causal link between a wrongful event and injury. The proof of fault lies with the applicant. Information accountable to patients and nosocomial infection are a particular setting. The Act of March 4, 2002 has also defined the concept of therapeutic risk. With the establishment of the Regional Commissions of Conciliation and Compensation (RCCI) and the National Office for Compensation of Medical Accident (Oniam), it is now possible for a patient to be compensated for an injury resulting from an accident Medical non-offending, while acknowledging the lack of accountability of the practitioner. The expertise conducted by an RCCI is adversarial. For the practitioner called to the cause, it is important to prepare for both substance and form, with the assistance of the medical board's insurance company.

The hospital board at risk and the need to restructure the relationship with the medical staff: bylaws, peer review and related solutions.

This article argues that the current structure of the hospital governing board and medical staff relationship does not support and promote quality and patient-centered care. The fundamental flaw in the current structure is the interdependent, yet independent and discordant relationships between hospital governing boards and medical staffs. These relationships are described as cultures and fit into three types of "silos": organizational (the "structural silo"); professional (the "professional silo", including the "culture of blame"); and the fragmented quality information silo (the "informational silo"). While case law, statutory requirements and regulatory expectations clearly state that governing boards are ultimately responsible for quality of patient care, governing boards delegate these functions to medical staff without having sufficient information to measure and monitor quality. As a result, problems manifest because of these failures of oversight and compliance. Dramatic lapses in quality occur due to overuse, underuse, and misuse of healthcare services. Furthermore, the challenges and opportunities from improved quality and patient safety, as a strategic business driver, cannot be seized until the underlying structural flaws are understood and addressed. This article proposes that solutions become apparent when the various health care constituencies are educated about these cultural impacts and when multidisciplinary bodies, with board leadership and direct authority, integrate and consider quality information.

Consumer participation and community organization practice: implications of national health legislation.

This paper reviews ten federal health laws from the perspective of the extent to which consumer participation had been incorporated as an integral aspect of health program, identifies some issues and dilemmas of implementing consumer participation activities, and offers suggestions for the involvement of consumer advocates. The review of the laws showed uncertainty of outcomes, conflicting philosophies, conflicting purposes, conflicting strategies, and conflicts relating to representativeness, legitimacy and consumer role. Despite the inconsistent record of Congress to legislate consumer participation, two recent health laws, P.L. 93-641 and Title III of P.L. 94-63, appear to offer major opportunities in promoting consumer involvement in planning and policy development activities. However, because these laws continue to delegate the responsibility for implementing consumer involvement programs to providers, established institutions and state agencies, consumer advocates are urged to increase their knowledge of the laws and to assist consumers to realize their right of self-determination. The cause is worthy and represents a desirable goal for public health--and in the final analysis, for the survival of our democratic society.