Does the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Self-Assessment Examination for Residents Predict the Chances of Passing the Part 1 Board Certification Examination?

Training factors that influence electrodiagnostic medicine knowledge

INTRODUCTION/AIMS

Self-assessment examinations (SAEs) help trainees assess their progress in education. SAEs also provide feedback to training programs as to how factors in training influence examination performance. This study's goal was to examine the relationship between the number of months of training in electrodiagnostic (EDx) medicine, the number of EDx studies during training, and scores on the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine SAE.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of the 2023 AANEM-SAE results. In addition to the examination score, participants were asked approximately how many EDx studies they performed in training and how many months of training they had completed. Analysis included correlation of the examination scores with months of training as well as number of EDx studies. In addition, a multivariate linear regression model was developed.

RESULTS

A total of 756 participants completed the proctored examination in May 2023. Examination score was moderately and positively correlated with the number of months of training (Pearson r = .5; p < .001) as well as the number of EDx studies during training (Pearson r = .55; p < .001). Scores steadily improved with additional months of training, but leveled off after 300-400 EDx studies. Regression analysis indicated that higher numbers of EDx studies were correlated with a higher examination score even after accounting for the number of months of study.

DISCUSSION

We believe that a greater number of months of training is associated with better performance on the AANEM-SAE and that greatest improvement in examination performance occurs during the first 300-400 EDx studies.

A Hybrid Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Curriculum for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residents-a Multi-center Pilot Program

Purpose of Review

The increased use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSKUS) in clinical practice warrants achieving competency earlier in physiatrists' careers. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) residency programs have started incorporating formal MSKUS training in their curricula; however, significant heterogeneity remains in MSKUS education.

Recent Findings

Numerous barriers contribute to the lack of consensus for MSKUS training during residency, but the COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted in-person learning. As an adjunct or alternative to in-person learning, teleguided technology is being utilized.

Summary

This curriculum demonstrates the role of a hybrid MSKUS training with interinstitutional collaboration. Twenty PM&R learners, from two institutions, were divided into a fundamental or advanced track. Virtual didactic sessions alternated weekly with hands-on ultrasonographic scanning sessions. Following a 12-month longitudinal curriculum, an end-of-year practical examination was used for competency assessment, in addition to a survey assessing resident perceptions and feedback. To our knowledge, this is the first collaborative and hybrid MSKUS curriculum for PM&R learners that can be easily reproduced at most training institutions and circumvent some of the barriers amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40141-023-00380-z.

Taking Leave During Residency: Types of Absences and Subsequent Delays and Variations in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Medical Board Pass Rates

ABSTRACT

There is limited literature examining the reasons physical medicine and rehabilitation residents take an extended leave of absence during residency and the impact of leave on board examination performance. Such information could better inform leave policies, help guide residency program directors, and potentially destigmatize taking leave. Study objectives were to describe the characteristics of physical medicine and rehabilitation residents who take leave during residency, compare differences in part I (written) and part II (oral) certification examination performance, and determine the prevalence of delays in taking board examinations. Study methodology was a retrospective analysis of deidentified information from the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation database between 2008 and 2020. Results indicated four reasons for extended leave of absence: medical, parental, academic/remediation, and unspecified personal reasons. Residents who took an extended leave of absence for medical or parental reasons had similar or better odds of passing their part I and part II examinations compared with those without leave. Residents who took leave for academic/remediation concerns or unspecified personal reasons had lower odds of passing their board examinations. Examination delays for those taking parental or personal health leaves did not affect board pass rates. Further investigation is needed to identify how to support residents on academic/remediation and unspecified leaves during training.

Key Findings From Peer-Reviewed Published Research by the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in Review

ABSTRACT

Recognizing the dearth of published research on board certification in physical medicine and rehabilitation and its subspecialties, the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation has increased efforts to conduct and disseminate research in this area. This report summarizes key findings of peer-reviewed studies published by American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation staff and leadership in the past 6 yrs, including those conducted in partnership with other entities. The reported studies are organized in three main categories: initial certification, continuing certification, and subspecialty certification in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Related findings are further grouped into subsections that include psychometric evaluation of certification examinations, association of candidate characteristics with certification performance, relationship of certification performance to other measures, and candidate reaction and feedback. Collectively, the summarized results provide evidence that the board certification process is reliable, statistically valid, and predictive of the risk of disciplinary action in subsequent years. These studies also describe facets of our specialty including degree of subspecialization, burnout, and how people maintain certification over time. We hope that physical medicine and rehabilitation trainees, diplomates, institutions, programs, and other stakeholders find this information useful and look forward to continuing research in these and other areas in the spirit of constant evidence-based improvement and feedback to our specialty.

Board Certification in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: A New Approach for a New Era

ABSTRACT

The American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation's revised mission and vision emphasize lifelong learning throughout its board certification processes. More formative approaches have been incorporated into both initial and continuing certification. These changes are based in adult learning theory and are supported by an ongoing board research endeavor. Board certification in the future is envisioned as a partnership with physicians to facilitate ongoing learning and positively impact patient outcomes.

Do Milestone Ratings Predict Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Board Certification Examination Scores?

ABSTRACT

The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education developed the Milestones to assist training programs in assessing resident physicians in the context of their participation in Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education-accredited training programs. Biannual assessments are done over a resident's entire training period to define the trajectory in achieving specialty-specific competencies. As part of its process of initial certification, the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation requires successful completion of two examinations administered approximately 9 mos apart. The Part I Examination measures a single dimensional construct, physical medicine and rehabilitation medical knowledge, whereas Part II assesses the application of medical and physiatric knowledge to multiple domains, including data acquisition, problem solving, patient management, systems-based practice, and interpersonal and communication skills through specific patient case scenarios. This study aimed to investigate the validity of the Milestones by demonstrating its association with performance in the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation certifying examinations. A cohort of 233 physical medicine and rehabilitation trainees in 3-yr residency programs (postgraduate year 2 entry) in the United States from academic years 2014-2016, who also took the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Parts I and II certifying examinations between 2016 and 2018, were included in the study. Milestones ratings in four distinct observation periods were correlated with scores in the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Parts I and II Examinations. Milestones ratings of medical knowledge (but not patient care, professionalism, problem-based learning, interpersonal and communication skills, and systems-based practice) predicted performance in subsequent Part I American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Examination, but none of the Milestone ratings correlated with Part II Examination scaled scores.

Performance of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine Candidates on the Subspecialty Board Certification Examination from 2003 to 2015

BACKGROUND

Pediatric rehabilitation medicine (PRM) physicians enter the field via several pathways. It is unknown whether different training pathways impact performance on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) PRM Examination and Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Examination.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the examination performance of candidates on the ABPMR PRM Examination according to their type of training (physiatrists with a clinical PRM focus, accredited or unaccredited fellowship training, separate pediatric and physical medicine and rehabilitation residencies, or combined pediatrics/physical medicine and rehabilitation residencies) and to compare candidates' performance on the PRM Examination with their initial ABPMR certification and MOC Examinations.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation office.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 250 candidates taking the PRM subspecialty certification examination from 2003 to 2015.

METHODS

Scaled scores on the PRM Examination were compared to the examinees' initial certification scores as well as their admissibility criteria. Pass rates and scaled scores also were compared for those taking their initial PRM certification versus MOC.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Board pass rates and mean scaled scores for initial PRM Examination and MOC.

RESULTS

The 250 physiatrists who took the subspecialty PRM Examination had an overall first-time pass rate of 89%. There was no significant difference between first-time PRM pass rates or mean scaled scores for individuals who completed an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship versus those who did not. First time PRM pass rates were greatest among those who were also certified by the American Board of Pediatrics (100%). Performance on Parts I and II of the initial ABPMR Certification Examination significantly predicted PRM Examination scores. There was no difference in mean scaled scores for initial PRM certification versus taking the PRM Examination for MOC.

CONCLUSIONS

Several pathways to admissibility to the PRM Examination afforded similar opportunity for diplomates to gain the knowledge necessary to pass the PRM Examination. Once certified, physicians taking the PRM Examination for MOC have a high success rate of passing again in years 7-10 of their certification cycle.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.