Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de estudo
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Teach Learn Med ; 33(1): 21-27, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32928000

RESUMO

Phenomenon: Internal medicine physicians in the United States must pass the American Board of Internal Medicine Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification (ABIM IM-MOC) examination as part of their ABIM IM-MOC requirements. Many of these physicians use an examination product to help them prepare, such as e-Learning products, including the ACP's MKSAP, UpToDate, and NEJM Knowledge+, yet their effectiveness remains largely unstudied. Approach: We compared ABIM IM-MOC examination performance among 177 physicians who attempted an ABIM IM-MOC examination between 2014-2017 and completed at least 75% of the NEJM Knowledge+ product prior to the ABIM IM-MOC examination and 177 very similar matched control physicians who did not use NEJM Knowledge+. Our measures of ABIM IM-MOC exam performance for NEJM Knowledge+ users were based on the results of the first attempt immediately following the NEJM Knowledge+ use and for non-users were based on the applicable matched examination performance. The three dichotomous examination performance outcomes measured on the first attempt at the ABIM IM-MOC examination included pass rate, scoring in the upper quartile, and scoring in the lower quartile. Findings: Use of NEJM Knowledge+ was associated with a regression adjusted 10.6% (5.37% to 15.8%) greater likelihood of passing the MOC examination (p < .001), 10.7% (2.61% to 18.7%) greater likelihood of having an examination score in the top quartile (p = .009), and -10.8% (-16.8% to -4.86%) lower likelihood of being in the bottom quartile of the MOC examination (p < .001) as compared to similar physicians who did not use NEJM Knowledge+. Insight: Physicians who used NEJM Knowledge+ had better ABIM IM-MOC exam performance. Further research is needed to determine what aspects of e-Learning products best prepare physicians for MOC examinations.


Assuntos
Certificação/normas , Competência Clínica/normas , Avaliação Educacional/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicina Interna/educação , Licenciamento em Medicina/normas , Conselhos de Especialidade Profissional/normas , Desempenho Acadêmico , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Humanos , Estados Unidos
2.
J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect ; 11(4): 425-428, 2021 Jun 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34211642

RESUMO

Introduction: Many internal medicine residents struggle to prepare for both the ITE and board test. Most existing resources are simply test question banks that are not linked to existing supporting literature from which they can study. Additionally, program directors are unable to track how much time residents are spending or performing on test preparation. We looked to evaluate the benefit of using this online platform to augment our pulmonary didactics and track time and performance on the pulmonary module and ITE pulmonary section. Method: During the month-long live didactic sessions, residents had free access to the pulmonology NEJM K+ platform. A platform-generated post-test was administered with new questions covering the same key elements, including the level of confidence meta-metric. An anonymous feedback survey was collected to assess the residents' feelings regarding using the NEJM Knowledge+ platform as compared to other prep resources. Results: 44 of 52 residents completed the pre-test. 51/52 completed the month-long didactic sessions and the post-test. Residents' score improvement from % correct pre-test (M = 46.90, SD = 15.31) to % correct post-test (M = 76.29, SD = 18.49) correlated with levels of mastery (t = 9.60, df = 41, p < .001). The % passing improved from 1/44 (2.3%) pre-test to 35/51 (68.6%) post-test, also correlating with levels of mastery. Accurate confidence correlated with improvement from pre to post test score (r = -51, p = .001). Survey feedback was favorable.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA