Quality of Care Provided by Board-Certified Versus Non-Board-Certified Psychiatrists and Neurologists

Wallace, Anna; McFarland, Bentson H.; Selvam, Nandini; Sahota, Gurvaneet

doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001233

Academic Medicine

2017

DOI: 10.1097/acm.0000000000001233

|View full text |Cite

Quality of Care Provided by Board-Certified Versus Non-Board-Certified Psychiatrists and Neurologists

Anna Wallace

Bentson H. McFarland²,

Nandini Selvam³

et al.

Abstract: The authors demonstrated the feasibility of linking physician information with patient records to construct quality measures from electronic claims data, but there may be only minimal differences in the quality of care between BC and nBC psychiatrists and neurologists, or there may be a difference that could not be measured with the quality measures used.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2019

2023

Publication Types

Select...

Article3

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent3

Authors

Journals

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to governmental regulators, many for-profit ratings agencies have proliferated online, relying on small surveys of unverified patients. Board certification also does not appear to be associated with better quality of health care delivery . The national rankings of health care organizations that employ physicians are assumed to be surrogates for quality, although data supporting this are lacking as well.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Quality

Khorana¹,

Khorana

2019

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Quality

Khorana¹,

Khorana

2019

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical Magnetoencephalography Practice in the United States Ten Years Later: A Survey-Based Reappraisal

Bagić

Burgess

2020

Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Broader utilization of magnetoencephalography (MEG) and optimization of clinical practice remain strategic goals of the American Clinical Magnetoencephalography Society. Despite the implementation of the first MEG Clinical Practice Guidelines, clinical adoption has been less than expected, prompting a reassessment. Methods: Twenty-five clinical MEG centers were invited to participate anonymously in a survey of clinical practice. Results: Centers (N = 18) mostly operated within an academic medical center (10/18), were owned by the “hospital” (10/18), associated with a level 4 National Association of Epilepsy center (15/18), and directed by neurologists (10/18). A total of 873 (median 59) epilepsy studies, 1,179 evoked fields (of all types), and 1,607 (median 30) research MEG studies were reported. Fourteen of 17 centers serve children (median 35%), but only 5 of 14 sedate children for MEG. All (N = 14) centers record EEG simultaneous with MEG, and 57% used dipole source localization. The median reporting time for epilepsy studies was 12 and 10 days for presurgical mapping studies. Most (12/14) were favorable toward the Clinical Practice Guidelines and “formalized certification” but were against mandating the latter. Conclusions: A plateau in MEG volumes suggests that MEG has not become a part of the standard of care, and correspondingly, the Clinical Practice Guidelines appeared to have had little impact on clinical practice. The American Clinical Magnetoencephalography Society must continue to engage magnetoencephalographers, potential referrers, and vendors.

show abstract

Medical specialty certification exams studied according to the Ottawa Quality Criteria: a systematic review

Staudenmann,

Waldner,

Lörwald

et al. 2023

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Medical specialty certification exams are high-stakes summative assessments used to determine which doctors have the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes to treat patients independently. Such exams are crucial for patient safety, candidates’ career progression and accountability to the public, yet vary significantly among medical specialties and countries. It is therefore of paramount importance that the quality of specialty certification exams is studied in the scientific literature. Methods In this systematic literature review we used the PICOS framework and searched for papers concerning medical specialty certification exams published in English between 2000 and 2020 in seven databases using a diverse set of search term variations. Papers were screened by two researchers independently and scored regarding their methodological quality and relevance to this review. Finally, they were categorized by country, medical specialty and the following seven Ottawa Criteria of good assessment: validity, reliability, equivalence, feasibility, acceptability, catalytic and educational effect. Results After removal of duplicates, 2852 papers were screened for inclusion, of which 66 met all relevant criteria. Over 43 different exams and more than 28 different specialties from 18 jurisdictions were studied. Around 77% of all eligible papers were based in English-speaking countries, with 55% of publications centered on just the UK and USA. General Practice was the most frequently studied specialty among certification exams with the UK General Practice exam having been particularly broadly analyzed. Papers received an average of 4.2/6 points on the quality score. Eligible studies analyzed 2.1/7 Ottawa Criteria on average, with the most frequently studied criteria being reliability, validity, and acceptability. Conclusions The present systematic review shows a growing number of studies analyzing medical specialty certification exams over time, encompassing a wider range of medical specialties, countries, and Ottawa Criteria. Due to their reliance on multiple assessment methods and data-points, aspects of programmatic assessment suggest a promising way forward in the development of medical specialty certification exams which fulfill all seven Ottawa Criteria. Further research is needed to confirm these results, particularly analyses of examinations held outside the Anglosphere as well as studies analyzing entire certification exams or comparing multiple examination methods.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

334 Leonard St

Brooklyn, NY 11211

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Quality of Care Provided by Board-Certified Versus Non-Board-Certified Psychiatrists and Neurologists

Cited by 3 publications

References 52 publications

Measuring Quality

Measuring Quality

Clinical Magnetoencephalography Practice in the United States Ten Years Later: A Survey-Based Reappraisal

Medical specialty certification exams studied according to the Ottawa Quality Criteria: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About