MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4230429654 · doi:10.1176/appi.pn.2015.6b2

ABMS President Defends MOC Part 4, Calls for Physician Engagement in Quality

2015· article· en· W4230429654 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Moran

Notice bibliographique

RevuePsychiatric News · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMaintenance of CertificationCertificationQuality (philosophy)ManagementVice presidentPolitical sciencePsychologyPublic relationsLawPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Association NewsFull AccessABMS President Defends MOC Part 4, Calls for Physician Engagement in QualityMark MoranMark MoranPublished Online:11 Jun 2015https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2015.6b2AbstractNora asks psychiatrists to become engaged in helping the ABMS improve and refine the performance-in-practice component of maintenance of certification."I absolutely believe we should keep the performance-in-practice component of maintenance of certification (MOC)," American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) President and Chief Executive Lois Margaret Nora, M.D., J.D., told the APA Assembly last month at APA's 2015 annual meeting in Toronto. "I know that many of you do not agree with me about this, but I would ask you to reconsider." ABMS President and Chief Executive Lois Margaret Nora, M.D., J.D., said she believes that the quality-improvement component of the maintenance of certification requirements will be "embraced" by physicians in time.David HathcoxNora spoke of a profound "disconnect" when it comes to Part 4 performance in practice. "I have heard from physicians who say, 'Part 4 has changed my practice for the better; we are doing things now that have improved the quality of care our patients receive.'"But I have also heard from people who say, 'I was forced to do something that was not relevant. And not only that, I tried to do something that was relevant, and they did not give me credit.' "Nora acknowledged that the MOC process, and in particular the Part 4 performance-in-practice component (also referred to as "improvement in medical practice") needs to be improved and refined. She vowed that the ABMS is responding to physician concerns by a "relaxation" of requirements and an expansion of activities that count toward fulfillment of Part 4."Performance in practice" refers to a requirement that physicians build into their routine practice the capacity to assess their performance continually against guidelines for best practices and make improvements to meet those guidelines. (Just before the start of APA's annual meeting, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology [ABPN] announced that the feedback module in Part 4 will become optional as of January 1, 2016. The Part 4 clinical module component, or chart review, will remain a requirement, and additional approved activities are now available on the ABPN website.) "I do not believe complaints like that are going to continue with [the inclusion of new activities] that meet standards for improvement but much more broadly," Nora said at the Assembly meeting. "With the appropriate flexibility, I believe that performance in practice will be embraced by physicians."Up to now it has been a chilly embrace. The ABMS has mandated that all medical specialties require physicians to demonstrate competence in four categories: professional standing, self-assessment and lifelong learning, cognitive expertise, and performance in practice.In an interview with Psychiatric News last year, ABPN President Larry Faulkner, M.D., explained that the "the performance-in-practice issue is a controversial and difficult one. … It boils down to a quality-improvement process. In general, physicians are going to have to demonstrate that they have looked at their practices and identified issues that need to be improved." But Part 4 has been the object of widespread physician concern and even anger. At the March meeting of the APA Board of Trustees, the Board voted to write a letter to Faulkner requesting that the ABPN advocate to the ABMS that Part 4 be eliminated. The ABPN operates under criteria established by the ABMS.The letter was the result of a motion, spurred by the Assembly Executive Committee, reflecting concerns over the limited evidence base for Part 4. Also at its March meeting, the Board of Trustees established a joint Board-Assembly work group to evaluate the broad issue of MOC in psychiatry and its relationship to maintenance of state licensure and requirements of other accrediting bodies. At the Assembly meeting, Nora pitched the benefits of quality improvement, saying that if physicians themselves do not enforce quality improvement in their ranks, then it likely will be enforced by outside authorities. Also, she encouraged physicians to become engaged in quality improvement and to help the ABMS improve the system. "It is well documented that physician engagement improves quality-improvement projects, that when there is physician engagement, there is greater buy-in and there are more relevant activities included," Nora said. "As a consequence, health systems want physician engagement. I believe also that there is potentially great benefit to physicians."Nora said that the American College of Physicians was finalizing work on a module to be included in Part 4 addressing physician resilience and burnout. Physician satisfaction is intimately connected to quality of care and quality improvement, she said."Many physicians are dissatisfied with their career choice, and as a profession we have concerns about burnout and physician suicide," Nora said. "Physician satisfaction is the 'canary in the coal mine' for quality improvement. If physicians believe they are delivering high-quality care to their patients, they will be happy as physicians."She solicited the input of psychiatrists in this area. "I believe that psychiatry has a unique expertise in this area that the rest of the profession would benefit from," she said. "I ask you to consider taking ownership of some of these topics and help to push these materials [on burnout and resilience] out to your physician colleagues." ■ ISSUES NewArchived

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,297
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,993

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,002
Communication savante0,0070,003
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0170,012
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2970,227

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,229
Tête enseignante GPT0,505
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePsychiatric News→Même sujetPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→Travaux en français237 207→