Comparison of State Medical Licensing Board Disclosures Regarding Resident Performance for United States Allopathic, Osteopathic, and Foreign Medical Graduates.

IF 1.1
Michal Gajewski, Machteld Hillen, Daniel Matassa, Anastasia Kunac, Michael Anana, Lisa Pompeo, Neil Kothari, Tiffany Murano
{"title":"Comparison of State Medical Licensing Board Disclosures Regarding Resident Performance for United States Allopathic, Osteopathic, and Foreign Medical Graduates.","authors":"Michal Gajewski,&nbsp;Machteld Hillen,&nbsp;Daniel Matassa,&nbsp;Anastasia Kunac,&nbsp;Michael Anana,&nbsp;Lisa Pompeo,&nbsp;Neil Kothari,&nbsp;Tiffany Murano","doi":"10.7556/jaoa.2020.152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>While recent streamlining of the graduate medical education process signals an important change from the traditional dichotomy between doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) and US-trained doctors of medicine (USMDs), this new uniformity does not continue into the process for licensure, including state medical licensing verification of training (VOT) forms for DOs, MDs, and foreign medical graduates (FMGs). Wide variability remains.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To document the differences in the performance metrics program that directors are required to disclose to state medical licensing boards for DOs and FMGs compared with USMDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>VOT forms were collected from all osteopathic and allopathic licensing boards for all US states, Washington DC, and US territories. The authors then reviewed VOT forms for questions pertaining to trainee performance only in states where VOT forms differed for DOs, USMDs, and FMGs. Licensing board questions were categorized as relating to disciplinary action, documents placed on file, resident actions, and nondisciplinary actions by the program.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-six states and territories were included in the study (50 US states; Washington, DC; and 5 US territories). Most states and territories (46; 82.1%) used the same VOT form for DOs and USMDs. All states and territories except New York used the same form for FMGs and USMDs (55; 98.2%). Of the 14 states with an osteopathic board, Nevada used Federation Credentials Verification Service (FCVS) for DOs only, and 8 states used a unique osteopathic VOT form. Of these 8 osteopathic boards, 3 VOT forms did not ask any questions regarding resident performance during training. Of the remaining 5 forms, all asked about disciplinary actions. Ten states and 1 territory (US Virgin Islands) required the FCVS for both USMDs and FMGs, but not for DOs, while New York required FCVS only for FMGs. Nevada required FCVS only for DOs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although VOT requirements for FMGs and USMDs were mostly the same within states, performance metric question sets varied greatly from state to state and within states for osteopathic vs allopathic licensing boards. Implementation of a standardized VOT form for all applicants that includes academic performance metrics may help ensure that medical licensure is granted to all physicians who demonstrate academic competency during training, regardless of their degree.</p>","PeriodicalId":47816,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2020.152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: While recent streamlining of the graduate medical education process signals an important change from the traditional dichotomy between doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) and US-trained doctors of medicine (USMDs), this new uniformity does not continue into the process for licensure, including state medical licensing verification of training (VOT) forms for DOs, MDs, and foreign medical graduates (FMGs). Wide variability remains.

Objective: To document the differences in the performance metrics program that directors are required to disclose to state medical licensing boards for DOs and FMGs compared with USMDs.

Methods: VOT forms were collected from all osteopathic and allopathic licensing boards for all US states, Washington DC, and US territories. The authors then reviewed VOT forms for questions pertaining to trainee performance only in states where VOT forms differed for DOs, USMDs, and FMGs. Licensing board questions were categorized as relating to disciplinary action, documents placed on file, resident actions, and nondisciplinary actions by the program.

Results: Fifty-six states and territories were included in the study (50 US states; Washington, DC; and 5 US territories). Most states and territories (46; 82.1%) used the same VOT form for DOs and USMDs. All states and territories except New York used the same form for FMGs and USMDs (55; 98.2%). Of the 14 states with an osteopathic board, Nevada used Federation Credentials Verification Service (FCVS) for DOs only, and 8 states used a unique osteopathic VOT form. Of these 8 osteopathic boards, 3 VOT forms did not ask any questions regarding resident performance during training. Of the remaining 5 forms, all asked about disciplinary actions. Ten states and 1 territory (US Virgin Islands) required the FCVS for both USMDs and FMGs, but not for DOs, while New York required FCVS only for FMGs. Nevada required FCVS only for DOs.

Conclusion: Although VOT requirements for FMGs and USMDs were mostly the same within states, performance metric question sets varied greatly from state to state and within states for osteopathic vs allopathic licensing boards. Implementation of a standardized VOT form for all applicants that includes academic performance metrics may help ensure that medical licensure is granted to all physicians who demonstrate academic competency during training, regardless of their degree.

国家医疗许可委员会披露的关于美国对抗疗法、整骨疗法和外国医学毕业生住院医师表现的比较。
背景:虽然最近研究生医学教育过程的简化标志着传统的骨科医生(DOs)和美国培训的医学医生(usmd)之间的二元分化发生了重要变化,但这种新的统一性并没有延续到许可过程中,包括对DOs、md和外国医学毕业生(fmg)的国家医疗许可培训验证(VOT)表格。仍然存在很大的可变性。目的:记录与usmd相比,董事需要向州医疗许可委员会披露的DOs和fmg的绩效指标计划的差异。方法:从美国各州、华盛顿特区和美国领土的所有整骨疗法和对抗疗法许可委员会收集VOT表格。然后,作者只在do、usmd和fmg的VOT表格不同的州回顾了VOT表格中与学员表现有关的问题。许可委员会的问题被分类为与纪律处分、文件存档、居民行为和非纪律处分有关的问题。结果:56个州和地区被纳入研究(美国50个州;华盛顿特区;和5个美国领土)。大多数州和地区(46个;82.1%)对DOs和usmd使用相同的VOT表格。除纽约外,所有州和地区对fmg和usmd使用相同的表格(55;98.2%)。在拥有整骨疗法委员会的14个州中,内华达州仅对DOs使用联邦证书验证服务(FCVS), 8个州使用独特的整骨疗法VOT表格。在这8个骨科委员会中,3个VOT表格没有询问任何关于住院医生在培训期间表现的问题。在剩下的5张表格中,都是关于纪律处分的问题。10个州和1个地区(美属维尔京群岛)对usmd和fmg都要求FCVS,但对do没有要求,而纽约只对fmg要求FCVS。内华达州只对DOs要求FCVS。结论:尽管各州对fmg和usmd的VOT要求基本相同,但绩效指标问题集在各州之间以及在各州内对于整骨疗法和对抗疗法许可委员会的差异很大。为所有申请人实施包括学术表现指标的标准化VOT表格,可能有助于确保所有在培训期间表现出学术能力的医生,无论其学位如何,都能获得医疗执照。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAOA—The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association is the official scientific publication of the American Osteopathic Association, as well as the premier scholarly, peer-reviewed publication of the osteopathic medical profession. The JAOA"s mission is to advance medicine through the scholarly publication of peer-reviewed osteopathic medical research. The JAOA"s goals are: 1. To be the authoritative scholarly publication of the osteopathic medical profession 2. To advance the traditional tenets of osteopathic medicine while encouraging the development of emerging concepts relevant to the profession"s distinctiveness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信