Factors Associated with Acceptance of Repeat MCAT Test Takers into a West Virginian Allopathic Medical School.

OBJECTIVES: A paucity of information exists to advise medical school applicants who have had to retake the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) to achieve a competitive score. To better advise repeat test takers from West Virginia and other Appalachian and southern areas, MCAT data from West Virginia applicants were analyzed and compared with national data. METHODS: In the application cycles of 2017-2020, the following factors were analyzed in relation to medical school acceptance in West Virginia applicants: MCAT scores, the number of test-taking attempts, biology-chemistry-physics-math grade point average, time between test-taking attempts, and academic major. MCAT data from medical school applicants from West Virginia who took the test more than once also were compared with national data. RESULTS: Of the total repeat test takers from West Virginia (N = 285) in the study timeframe, 57 (20%) were ultimately accepted into medical school. Factors associated with medical school acceptance were as follows: first MCAT test score (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, 95% confidence level [CL] 1.2-1.4, P < 0.001), change in MCAT test score (OR 1.2, 95% CL 1.1-1.3, P = 0.0015), and biology-chemistry-physics-math grade point average (OR 15.1, 95% CL 4.2-54.8, P < 0.0001). The highest benefit for improved scores occurred between the first and second attempts. The highest point gain occurred when the first MCAT score was in the range of 477 to 487 (<1st-12th percentile); this finding was not found in the national data. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study was limited to West Virginia medical school applicants, this information could prove useful in advising premedical applicants from other Appalachian and southern US areas.

Pediatric Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine: A Scoping Review.

CONTEXT: A common reproach precluding the use of osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) in pediatrics is a lack of evidence regarding its safety, feasibility, and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic, scoping review of pediatric osteopathic medicine to identify gaps in the literature and make recommendations for future research. DATA SOURCES: We searched 10 databases using 6 key words and medical subject heading terms for any primary articles reporting OMM use in children published from database inception until initiation of the study. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were selected if they reported primary data on OMM conducted in the United States on patient(s) 0 to 18 years old. DATA EXTRACTION: Baseline study characteristics were collected from each article and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system was used to critically appraise each study. RESULTS: Database search yielded 315 unique articles with 30 studies fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 13 reported the data required to demonstrate statistically significant results, and no significant adverse events were reported. The majority of studies were graded as providing weak clinical evidence because of significant methodologic flaws and biases. LIMITATIONS: The review was limited to US-based studies and reports. Minimal discrepancies between reviewers were resolved via an objective third reviewer. CONCLUSIONS: There is little strong, scientific, evidence-based literature demonstrating the therapeutic benefit of OMM for pediatric care. No strong clinical recommendations can be made, but it can be medically tolerated given its low risk profile. High-quality, scientifically rigorous OMM research is required to evaluate safety, feasibility, and efficacy in pediatrics.

Review of Opioid Prescribing in the Osteopathic and Ambulatory Setting.

The opioid epidemic in the United States is one of the largest modern health crises in the nation's history. The crisis has been cultivated in academic journals, driven by the medical-pharmaceutical complex, and fueled by campaigns representing the most prestigious health care organizations and advocacy groups. Comprehensive guidelines for proper prescribing have been released in addition to state-sponsored prescription drug-monitoring programs (PDMPs) in response to overprescribing habits. When considering opioid treatment for a patient, physicians should document a thorough history of pain, give an appropriate physical examination, and complete a risk assessment using the proper diagnostic tools. Considering the osteopathic philosophy and approach to chronic pain, physicians should account for an integrative treatment approach for improved patient outcomes when considering applying the osteopathic philosophy to chronic pain management. A successful treatment plan can integrate cognitive behavioral therapy and promote self-healing by treating somatic dysfunctions with osteopathic manipulative treatment. This literature review discusses how to treat patients with chronic pain and how to properly use and prescribe opioids. The researchers analyzed the history and current status of the opioid epidemic, examined opioid management in the outpatient setting, reviewed the current domestic and international opioid prescribing guidelines, and discussed the incorporation of the osteopathic philosophy to manage chronic pain.

The Osteopathic Applicant.

The number of osteopathic students choosing emergency medicine (EM) as a specialty is continuously increasing. However, EM remains a competitive specialty. Accordingly, in this article we guide osteopathic students interested in EM through the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX), the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), third- and fourth-year rotations, and the match process. Additionally, we provide tips on the process of applying to allopathic programs and we discuss the timeline of both the allopathic and osteopathic match. Finally, we discuss the effect of the Single Accreditation System and the Memorandum of Understanding, an agreement to merge the allopathic and osteopathic graduate medical education systems into a single graduate medical education accreditation system. This is expected to be completed as of July 1, 2020. Therefore, we elucidate the expectations for osteopathic applicants (particularly with regards to the USMLE and COMLEX examinations).

Medical Degree Disparity Among Authors in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals.

CONTEXT: With the transition to a single accreditation system for graduate medical education, the scholarly activity among core faculty in osteopathic and allopathic residency programs has come under scrutiny. Currently, major differences in scholarly activity requirements exist between core faculty in obstetrics and gynecology residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and those accredited by the American Osteopathic Association. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a disparity between osteopathic and allopathic physicians among authors with original research published in 4 high-impact obstetrics and gynecology journals during 4 select years. METHODS: The authors reviewed Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Am J Obstet Gynecol), Fertility and Sterility (Fertil Steril), and Menopause for the degree designation of the first and senior (last) author of each original manuscript for the years of 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics and linear regression. RESULTS: In total, 3311 articles and 5909 authors were reviewed. Of these authors, 0.80% (47) had a DO degree. Of 1692 authors with dual advanced degrees, only 0.53% (9) had a DO degree. On subgroup analysis of each journal, 0.87% (13 of 1494) of identified authors in Obstet Gynecol, 1.03% (21 of 2038) in Am J Obstet Gynecol, 0.44% (9 of 2030) in Fertil Steril, and 2.20% (4 of 347) in Menopause were osteopathic physicians. During the years studied, no statistically significant trend could be established for first or senior author publication by osteopathic physicians over time, for all 4 journals or for any individual journal. CONCLUSION: Very few osteopathic physicians have served as either the first or the senior author in articles published in Obstet Gynecol, Am J Obstet Gynecol, Fertil Steril, or Menopause during the years studied, and no trend was seen for increased publication by osteopathic physicians in these journals over time.

The Single Graduate Medical Education (GME) Accreditation System Will Change the Future of the Family Medicine Workforce.

BACKGROUND: Due to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)/American Osteopathic Association (AOA) single-accreditation model, the specialty of family medicine may see as many as 150 programs and 500 trainees in AOA-accredited programs seek ACGME accreditation. This analysis serves to better understand the composition of physicians completing family medicine residency training and their subsequent certification by the American Board of Family Medicine. METHODS: We identified residents who completed an ACGME-accredited or dual-accredited family medicine residency program between 2006 and 2016 and cross-tabulated the data by graduation year and by educational background (US Medical Graduate-MD [USMG-MD], USMG-DO, or International Medical Graduate-MD [IMG-MD]) to examine the cohort composition trend over time. RESULTS: The number and proportion of osteopaths completing family medicine residency training continues to rise concurrent with a decline in the number and proportion of IMGs. Take Rates for USMG-MDs and USMG-IMGs seem stable; however, the Take Rate for the USMG-DOs has generally been rising since 2011. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear change in the composition of graduating trainees entering the family medicine workforce. As the transition to a single accreditation system for graduate medical education progresses, further shifts in the composition of this workforce should be expected.

Meeting ACGME Standards Under a Unified Accreditation System: Challenges for Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education Programs.

In 2014, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to create a unified accreditation system for graduate medical education (GME) under the ACGME. The AOA will cease to accredit GME programs on June 30, 2020. By then, AOA-accredited programs need to apply for and achieve ACGME initial accreditation. The terms of the MOU also made it advantageous for some formerly nonteaching hospitals to establish AOA programs, chiefly in primary care, as a step toward future ACGME accreditation.In transitioning AOA programs to the ACGME system, hospitals with osteopathic GME can expect to encounter challenges related to major differences between AOA and ACGME standards. The minimum numbers of residents for ACGME programs in most specialties are greater than those for AOA programs, which will require hospitals that may already be at their federal caps to add additional residency positions. ACGME standards are also more faculty- and staff-intensive and require additional infrastructure, necessitating additional financial investments. In addition, greater curricular specificity in ACGME standards will generate new educational and financial challenges.To address these challenges, hospitals may need to reallocate resources and positions among their current AOA programs, reducing the number of programs (and specialties) they sponsor. It is expected that a number of established and new AOA programs will choose not to pursue ACGME accreditation or will fail to qualify for ACGME initial accreditation.

A qualitative grounded theory study of the conceptions of clinical practice in osteopathy - a continuum from technical rationality to professional artistry.

How practitioners conceive clinical practice influences many aspects of their clinical work including how they view knowledge, clinical decision-making, and their actions. Osteopaths have relied upon the philosophical and theoretical foundations upon which the profession was built to guide clinical practice. However, it is currently unknown how osteopaths conceive clinical practice, and how these conceptions develop and influence their clinical work. This paper reports the conceptions of practice of experienced osteopaths in the UK. A constructivist grounded theory approach was taken in this study. The constant comparative method of analysis was used to code and analyse data. Purposive sampling was employed to initially select participants. Subsequent theoretical sampling, informed by data analysis, allowed specific participants to be sampled. Data collection methods involved semi-structured interviews and non-participant observation of practitioners during a patient appointment, which was video-recorded and followed by a video-prompted reflective interview. Participants' conception of practice lay on a continuum, from technical rationality to professional artistry and the development of which was influenced by their educational experience, view of health and disease, epistemology of practice knowledge, theory-practice relationship and their perceived therapeutic role. The findings from this study provide the first theoretical insight of osteopaths' conceptions of clinical practice and the factors which influence such conceptions.

Clinical decision-making and therapeutic approaches in osteopathy - a qualitative grounded theory study.

There is limited understanding of how osteopaths make decisions in relation to clinical practice. The aim of this research was to construct an explanatory theory of the clinical decision-making and therapeutic approaches of experienced osteopaths in the UK. Twelve UK registered osteopaths participated in this constructivist grounded theory qualitative study. Purposive and theoretical sampling was used to select participants. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews which were audio-recorded and transcribed. As the study approached theoretical sufficiency, participants were observed and video-recorded during a patient appointment, which was followed by a video-prompted interview. Constant comparative analysis was used to analyse and code data. Data analysis resulted in the construction of three qualitatively different therapeutic approaches which characterised participants and their clinical practice, termed; Treater, Communicator and Educator. Participants' therapeutic approach influenced their approach to clinical decision-making, the level of patient involvement, their interaction with patients, and therapeutic goals. Participants' overall conception of practice lay on a continuum ranging from technical rationality to professional artistry, and contributed to their therapeutic approach. A range of factors were identified which influenced participants' conception of practice. The findings indicate that there is variation in osteopaths' therapeutic approaches to practice and clinical decision-making, which are influenced by their overall conception of practice. This study provides the first explanatory theory of the clinical decision-making and therapeutic approaches of osteopaths.