A Concordance Study of COMLEX-USA and USMLE Scores

Leadership perspectives on osteopathic medical school applicants to pathology residency training

The number of graduating allopathic (MD) medical students matching into pathology has declined in recent years, while the number of osteopathic (DO) medical students has increased modestly, given the rapid expansion of osteopathic medical schools. Nonscholarly publications and materials on the internet often perpetuate negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians. Anecdotally, perspectives exist that some pathology residency programs are not DO-friendly; however, the reasons and how widespread an effect this might be are unclear. Our survey queried pathology chairs and residency program directors about their perceptions of osteopathic applicants and their knowledge of osteopathic medical school/training in general. This study utilized two similar, parallel surveys of pathology chairs and residency program directors with general questions structured around the perceptions and knowledge of both allopathic and osteopathic physicians, their medical training, and the consideration of osteopathic applicants to pathology residency. Pathology residency leaders acknowledge some negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians in the medical profession, the news, and social media. They also have some knowledge and perception gaps regarding osteopathic training and applicants, although experience with training osteopathic physicians as residents has been equivalent to that with allopathic physicians, and consideration appears to be fairly equal for osteopathic applicants. Even though negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians persist in news and social media, our surveys demonstrate that the leadership of pathology residency programs does not hold the same degree of bias and that DOs perform well in allopathic pathology residency programs without evidence of inferior outcomes.

Association Between In-Training Exam Scores and Clinical Exposure During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

We sought to evaluate changes in In-Training Examination (ITE) scores and associations with clinical work during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that residents saw a decrease in clinical encounters during the pandemic and that this would be associated with smaller gains in ITE scores.

METHODS

We compared ITE score changes with data on patient notes for three classes of pediatric residents at four residency programs: one not exposed to the pandemic during their intern year who entered residency in 2018, one partially exposed to COVID-19 in March of their intern year (2019-2020), and one that was fully exposed to the pandemic, starting residency in June of 2020.

RESULTS

ITE scores on average improved from the PGY1 to PGY2 year in the "no covid" and "partial COVID" cohorts. The "full COVID" cohort had little to no improvement, on average. The total number of patient encounters was not associated with a change in ITE scores from PGY1 to PGY2. There was a small but statistically significant association between change in ITE score and number of inpatient H+P notes.

CONCLUSIONS

A drop in ITE scores occurred in pediatric residents who entered residency during the COVID-19 pandemic. This change was largely unrelated to clinical encounter number changes.

Minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Scores Often Do Not Align

Background Many residency programs do not accept the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX-USA) alone for osteopathic applicants. Furthermore, among those programs that do accept the COMLEX-USA, it is unknown how programs scale their minimum COMLEX-USA scores compared to their minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores. Objective Our objective was to examine the variation of relative within-program differences between minimum USMLE Step and COMLEX-USA Level scores required for consideration by United States residency programs. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA) database from April 2023, including the 10 specialties with the most training spots in 2022. These specialties were internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, psychiatry, surgery, anesthesiology, obstetrics-gynecology, orthopedic surgery, and neurology. Within-program differences were calculated by subtracting the minimum USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores from the converted minimum USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores calculated from the minimum COMLEX-USA Level 1 and 2 scores using two conversion tools. We present differences as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Additionally, we report the proportion of programs with greater than 10-point differences for each step (1 and 2). Results Of the 3,364 accredited programs from the examined specialties, we included 1,477 in the Step 1 analysis and 1,227 in the Step 2 analysis with complete data. The median within-program difference between the minimum Step 1 score and the predicted Step 1 score was 12.0 (IQR 2.0, 17.0) using the Barnum and colleagues' conversion tool and -1.7 (IQR -6.2, 6.3) using the Smith and colleagues' tool. The median differences for Step 2 were 2.0 (IQR -8.0, 12.0) and -6.5 (IQR -13.9, -1.5) for each tool, respectively. Using the Barnum and Smith conversion tools, 937 (63%) and 435 (29%) programs had a greater than 10-point Step 1 score difference, respectively. Similarly, for Step 2, 564 (46%) and 515 (42%) programs had a greater than 10-point difference with each conversion tool. Conclusion There is wide variation in the within-program differences between minimum USMLE and predicted minimum USMLE (from COMLEX-USA) scores. Many programs have greater than 10-point differences, which may be a source of bias in osteopathic applicant selection.

Comparison of Hospital Outcomes for Patients Treated by Allopathic Versus Osteopathic Hospitalists : An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The United States has 2 types of degree programs that educate physicians: allopathic and osteopathic medical schools.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether quality and costs of care differ between hospitalized Medicare patients treated by allopathic or osteopathic physicians.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Medicare claims data.

PATIENTS

20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with a medical condition during 2016 to 2019 and treated by hospitalists.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 30-day patient mortality. The secondary outcomes were 30-day readmission, length of stay (LOS), and health care spending (Part B spending). Multivariable regression models adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and their hospital-level averages (to effectively estimate differences within hospitals) were estimated.

RESULTS

Of 329 510 Medicare admissions, 253 670 (77.0%) and 75 840 (23.0%) received care from allopathic and osteopathic physicians, respectively. The results can rule out important differences in quality and costs of care between allopathic versus osteopathic physicians for patient mortality (adjusted mortality, 9.4% for allopathic physicians vs. 9.5% [reference] for osteopathic hospitalists; average marginal effect [AME], -0.1 percentage point [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1 percentage point]; P = 0.36), readmission (15.7% vs. 15.6%; AME, 0.1 percentage point [CI, -0.4 to 0.3 percentage point; P = 0.72), LOS (4.5 vs. 4.5 days; adjusted difference, -0.001 day [CI, -0.04 to 0.04 day]; P = 0.96), and health care spending ($1004 vs. $1003; adjusted difference, $1 [CI, -$8 to $10]; P = 0.85).

LIMITATION

Data were limited to elderly Medicare patients hospitalized with medical conditions.

CONCLUSION

The quality and costs of care were similar between allopathic and osteopathic hospitalists when they cared for elderly patients and worked as the principal physician in a team of health care professionals that often included other allopathic and osteopathic physicians.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging.

Awareness and interest in osteopathic manipulative treatment in allopathic medical students

CONTEXT

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is utilized by clinicians to diagnose and treat a variety of musculoskeletal conditions including acute and chronic pain, and other medical conditions. Previous studies have examined attitudes of allopathic (MD) residents toward OMT and have implemented residency-based curricula; however, literature is lacking on the attitudes of MD students toward OMT.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine MD students' familiarity with OMT and to evaluate their interest in an elective osteopathic curriculum.

METHODS

A 15-item online survey was electronically sent to 600 MD students at a large allopathic academic medical center. The survey assessed familiarity with OMT, interest in OMT and in participating in an OMT elective, educational format preference, and interest in pursuing primary care. Educational demographics were also collected. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were utilized for categorical variables, and nonparametric tests were utilized for the ordinal and continuous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 313 MD students submitted responses (response rate=52.1 %), of which 296 (49.3 %) responses were complete and utilized for analysis. A total of 92 (31.1 %) students were aware of OMT as a modality in treating musculoskeletal disorders. Among the respondents who indicated "very interested" in learning a new pain treatment modality, the majority: (1) observed OMT in a prior clinical or educational setting (85 [59.9 %], p=0.02); (2) had a friend or family member treated by a DO physician (42 [71.2 %], p=0.01); (3) were pursuing a primary care specialty (43 [60.6 %], p=0.02); or (4) interviewed at an osteopathic medical school (47 [62.7 %], p=0.01). Among those interested in developing some OMT competency, the majority: (1) were pursuing a primary care specialty (36 [51.4 %], p=0.01); (2) applied to osteopathic schools (47 [54.0], p=0.002); or (3) interviewed at an osteopathic medical school (42 [56.8 %], p=0.001). A total of 230 (82.1 %) students were somewhat or very interested in a 2-week elective course in OMT; among all respondents, hands-on labs were the preferred method for delivery of OMT education (272 [94.1 %]).

CONCLUSIONS

The study found a strong interest in an OMT elective by MD students. These results will inform OMT curriculum development aimed at interested MD students and residents in order to provide them with OMT-specific theoretical and practical knowledge.

Understanding and preference toward DOs and OMT before and after an osteopathic principles and practice fellow lecture series

CONTEXT

One of the two major pathways to become a physician in the United States is the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) degree. A major distinctive feature is often perceived as the addition of manual training in osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in the DO education. However, the profession also has a distinct philosophy imbedded in the curriculum of all osteopathic medical schools. Many medical schools offer professional degrees with graduates who may choose to continue their education in medicine, such as the Master of Science in Biomedical Sciences (MSBS). At our institution, there is no formal exposure to the differences between osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the MSBS curriculum, and most of this understanding is gained through out-of-classroom conversations. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, virtual learning prohibited the usual gathering and discourse that occurs when students are learning on campus.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to create a curriculum in the form of a seminar series to assist premedical students in making an informed choice about which profession is the best fit for their own education and to gain an appreciation for osteopathic medicine. This appreciation could also aid in the future collaboration of premedical students with osteopathic providers, recommendations to patients, and potentially their own medical care. Questionnaires were utilized to determine if our osteopathic seminar series was effective at changing the preferences and understanding of MSBS students. We also sought to determine the effectiveness of virtual vs. in-person delivery of our curriculum.

METHODS

A seminar series with pre-established objectives was developed and presented to MSBS students at an osteopathic institution during the Fall of 2020 and 2021. The 2020 seminar was delivered through a virtual conference platform, and the 2021 seminar was delivered in-person. An eight question pre-and postquestionnaire was given to participants to evaluate their preferences and understanding. Internal validity and differences between delivery formats were assessed.

RESULTS

Both seminar series produced equally effective, significant changes in the preferences and perceptions of osteopathic medicine in both virtual and in-person delivery formats. Differences in pre-vs. post understanding across both seminar series were not consistently significant and were smaller than those observed in preferences and perceptions. Positive changes included an increased willingness to see a DO and to recommend a loved one see a DO as their personal physician. Preference changes between the in-person vs. virtual delivery platforms did not show significant differences; however, understanding did show some inconsistent differences.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the utility of a virtual or in-person seminar to improve the preferences and perceptions of the osteopathic profession in MSBS students. The seminar series was successful in its goal of offering formal exposure to the osteopathic profession. The improved preferences and perceptions will have potential substantial benefits to the field of osteopathic medicine in the future. Further research is warranted to determine the most effective way to increase understanding of the osteopathic profession.