Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 34, Issue 9, pp 1790–1796 | Cite as

“That Was Pretty Powerful”: a Qualitative Study of What Physicians Learn When Preparing for Their Maintenance-of-Certification Exams

  • Benjamin CheslukEmail author
  • Bradley Gray
  • Aimee Eden
  • Elizabeth Hansen
  • Lorna Lynn
  • Lars Peterson
Article

Abstract

Background

A key component of Maintenance of Certification (MOC) for family and internal medicine physicians is the requirement to pass a periodic examination of medical knowledge. Little is known about the effects of preparing for MOC exams on knowledge and practice.

Objective

To understand how MOC exam preparation can affect knowledge and practice.

Design

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews, 45–60 min each, conducted by telephone at participants’ convenience.

Participants

A total of 80 primary care physicians from the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) and the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) who had recently taken an MOC exam; the sample purposefully selected to represent diversity of experiences with MOC exams and range of opinions about MOC, as well as diversity of participant backgrounds—gender, practice type, etc.

Approach

Close analysis of physicians’ accounts of what they learned when preparing for an MOC exam and how this knowledge affected their practice.

Results

Sixty-seven of 80 physicians stated they gained knowledge relevant to their practice. Sixty-three gave concrete examples of how this affected their practice, including direct changes to patient care (e.g., improved diagnosis or prescribing and reduced unnecessary testing) or less direct changes (e.g., improved ability to co-manage with other providers or communicate with patients). Physicians also described sharing what they learned with others, including peers and trainees.

Limitations

Interviews could have been affected by recall and/or social desirability bias, as well as researchers’ role as board staff. Although we followed a recruitment protocol designed to mitigate recruitment acceptance bias, our findings may not be generalizable to wider groups of physicians.

Conclusions

Most physicians from two primary care specialties interviewed reported ways in which studying for an MOC exam resulted in acquiring knowledge that was both relevant and beneficial to their patient care.

KEY WORDS

continuing professional development continuing medical education qualitative research 

Notes

Contributors

The authors wish to thank Elizabeth Bernabeo, Siddharta Reddy (including for the design of the figure), and especially Michele Johnson for their participation in this project. We also thank Rebecca Lipner for her help in defining the project and analyzing the data. Finally, we sincerely thank the physicians who generously gave of their time to participate in our interviews.

Funders

This study received support from the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The American Academy of Family Physicians IRB approved the study.

Conflict of Interest

At the time of this study, all authors and all those named above were employees of the American Board of Internal Medicine or the American Board of Family Medicine.

Supplementary material

11606_2019_5118_MOESM1_ESM.docx (70 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 70 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Teirstein PS, Topol EJ. The role of maintenance of certification programs in governance and professionalism. JAMA. 2015;313(18):1809–1810.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ABMS. Fact Sheet: American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and ABMS Maintenance of Certification® (ABMS MOC®). 2013 [cited May 13, 2019]. Available from: http://www.abms.org/News_and_Events/Media_Newsroom/pdf/ABMS_Fact_sheet.pdf.
  3. 3.
    Cassel CK, Holmboe ES. Professionalism and accountability: the role of specialty board certification. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2008;119:295–304.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lipner RS, Hess BJ, Phillips RL. Specialty board certification in the United States: issues and evidence. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2013(S1):20–35.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray BM, Vandergrift JL, Johnston MM, et al. Association between imposition of a Maintenance of Certification requirement and ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations and health care costs. JAMA. 2014;312(22):2348–2357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gray B, Vandergrift J, Lipner R. Association between the American Board of Internal Medicine’s general internist’s Maintenance of Certification requirement and mammography screening for Medicare beneficiaries. Women's Health Issues. 2018;28(1):35–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gray B, Vandergrift J, Landon B, Reschovsky J, Lipner R. Associations between American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification status and performance on a set of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set process measures. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(2):97–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holmboe ES, Lynn L, Duffy FD. Improving the quality of care via Maintenance of Certification and the web: an early status report. Perspect Biol Med. 2008;51(1):71–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDonald F, Duhigg L, Arnold G, Hafer R, Lipner R. The American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification examination and state medical board disciplinary actions: a population cohort study. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(8):1292–1298.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petterson S, McNellis R, Klink K, Meyers D, Bazemore A. The state of primary care in the United States: a chartbook of facts and statistics. Washington, DC: Robert Graham Center; 2018.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mason M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2010;11(3):Art. 8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. 1965;12(4):436–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chesluk B, Eden A, Hansen E, et al. How physicians prepare for Maintenance of Certification exams: a qualitative study. Acad Med. In Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roediger HL 3rd, Karpicke JD. The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006;1(3):181–210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(3):249–255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ABMS, Vision for the Future Commission. Continuing board certification: vision for the future. February 12, 2019 [cited April 1, 2019]. Available from: https://visioninitiative.org/commission/final-report/.

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Chesluk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bradley Gray
    • 1
  • Aimee Eden
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Hansen
    • 3
  • Lorna Lynn
    • 1
  • Lars Peterson
    • 2
  1. 1.American Board of Internal MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.ABFMLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.University of Kentucky College of MedicineLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations