Mock radiology oral examination

Rewinding the Clock: Preparing the Next Generation of Radiology Residents for Oral Boards

The replacement of the ABR in-person oral examination with the DR certifying examination affected approximately 15,000 radiologists, spanning from 2013 to 2027. This decision was motivated by better aligning with the timing of other American Board of Medical Specialty (ABMS) members, more closely reflecting real-world practice of radiology and narrowing training geared towards the trainee's subspecialty preference. However, in retrospect, this change may have subtracted from the quality and value of diagnostic radiology training as a whole with the de-emphasis on competence in general radiology, communication skills, and cognitive reasoning. In this paper, the authors lay out a blueprint necessary in order to rewind the clock of how diagnostic radiology programs can prepare their trainees for the new DR oral examination. Such a change will require substantial redactions affecting all designations, including radiology faculty, education teams, departmental leadership, academic institutions, ACGME, and ABR. The authors believe that implementing these modifications will not only effectively equip radiology candidates for the new DR oral examination but will also augment the significance of radiologists as indispensable members of multidisciplinary teams. The authors also outline the challenges that could emerge from these changes and speculate on the anticipated role of AI in future oral board examinations.

Resident attitudes and benefits of mock oral board examinations in radiation oncology

BACKGROUND

Presently, educational programming is not standardized across radiation oncology (RO) training programs. Specifically, there are limited materials through national organizations or structured practice exams for residents preparing for the American Board of Radiology (ABR) oral board examination. We present our 2019 experience implementing a formalized program of early mock oral board examinations (MOBE) for residents in post-graduate years (PGY) 3-5.

METHODS

A mixed-methods survey regarding MOBE perception and self-reported comfort across five clinical domains were administered to PGY2-5 residents. MOBEs and a post-intervention survey were implemented for the PGY3-5. The pre and post-intervention score across clinical domains were compared using t-tests. Faculty and residents were asked for post-intervention comments.

RESULTS

A total of 14 PGY2-5 residents completed the pre-intervention survey; 9 residents participated in the MOBE (5/14 residents were PGY2s) and post-intervention survey. This was the first mock oral radiation oncology examination experience for 65% of residents. 100% of residents felt the MOBE increased their clinical knowledge and comfort with clinical reasoning. Overall, there was a trend towards improved resident confidence giving planning dose parameters and (p = 0.08). There was also unanimous request for more MOBE experiences from residents and faculty, but time was identified as a significant barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

Future directions for this MOBE program are inclusion of more disease sites, better emulation of the exam, the creation of a more rigorous consolidated format testing all sites at once, and consideration for grading of these sessions for future correlation with certifying oral board examination (OBE) performance.

Advancing Competency-Based Medical Education Through Assessment and Feedback in Breast Imaging

Competency-based medical education (CBME) is a method of educating and assessing trainees that focuses on outcomes, rather than process. In this review, we inform radiologists involved in breast imaging training on the tenets of CBME and its relationship to the milestones, feedback and assessment. We also describe multiple methods for assessment specific to the breast imaging curriculum, and techniques for improving feedback to trainees in breast imaging.

Does the Oral "Mock Board" Examination Still Have a Role as a Training Tool?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The American Board of Radiology has adopted a new standardized board examination and the traditional oral examination has been abandoned. Although many programs have changed their educational efforts to reflect the new test format, some faculty members and residents have expressed a desire to keep an oral examination as a component of education and evaluation in radiology residency programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An oral comprehensive examination including all the appropriate subspecialties was administered to each second year and third year resident in our training program by faculty members. Both the resident examinees and faculty examiners were surveyed after the examination to gauge the perceived value of the experience.

RESULTS

Residents were divided in their perceptions of the fairness and utility of an oral examination as a tool to aid in board preparation and as an assessment of their knowledge and communication skill. Faculty members were universal in their endorsement of the oral examination and suggested continued use of the technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents and faculty members have differing perceptions of an oral examination delivered during training to assess knowledge and communication skill. The value of an oral examination in providing actionable feedback to trainees and the possibility of detecting struggling residents made it useful in our training program, and it thus it has been implemented for future years. Whether resident performance measured by this technique is predictive of success on American Board of Radiology examinations remains unclear.

Can American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part 2 board examination scores be predicted from rotation evaluations or mock oral examinations?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether either Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation residency performance on core competency evaluations or on practice mock oral examinations is correlated to performance on future American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part 2 board-certifying examination.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study of residents who took part 2 of the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation certification examination between 1995 and 2011 (N = 31 or 38 or 67).

RESULTS

The postgraduate year 4 mock oral examination average achieved significance in correlation analysis (Spearman ρ, 0.0391; P = 0.030). Patient care and a composite average of the other core competencies evaluations were also significantly correlated with performance on part 2 of the board-certifying examination (Spearman ρ, 0.329; P = 0.044). The only independent variable that was uniquely predictive was postgraduate year 4 mock oral examinations (χ = 7.09; P = 0.029). More specifically, when controlling for rotation performances, residents with higher mock oral examination scores were 9.6 times (Exp B = 9.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-80; P = 0.036) more likely than those one grade lower to achieve the upper half on oral board examinations vs. either of the lower 2 quartiles.

CONCLUSIONS

The postgraduate year 4 mock oral examinations and the core competency evaluations composite are each predictive of performance on American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation part 2 examination. Further research into this area, with a larger sample size and with multiple institutions, would be helpful to allow for a better measurement of these evaluation tools' effectiveness.

Preparing to sit the Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Radiologists Faculty of Radiation Oncology Fellowship Part 2 examination: the value of a workshop including practice and feedback

A workshop has been held annually to help prepare candidates to sit the Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Radiologists Part 2 Faculty of Radiation Oncology examination. This study examined the value of such a course and its component parts and assessed attendees' learning environments. We collected detailed information from participants before and after the training workshop in 2005. A specific feature of this workshop included the use of an examination technique feedback form to facilitate the provision of systematic and comprehensive feedback to individual candidates after mock examination. Participants completed course evaluation forms and a learning environment survey. There were 22 candidate participants. The course and its components of this course were perceived very positively - including the examination technique feedback forms and written advice. Only three of the 24 questions regarding the registrars learning environment had less than 80% favourable responses - two of these questions related to workload. The course design described seems reasonably satisfactory in that it included the components ranked most highly by candidates. We also identified a number of variations that may be useful for future workshops. Although learning environments were generally good, we identified a perceived problem with workloads affecting a significant number of registrars.