MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4230429654 · doi:10.1176/appi.pn.2015.6b2

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric News · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaintenance of CertificationCertificationQuality (philosophy)ManagementVice presidentPolitical sciencePsychologyPublic relationsLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from 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

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0170.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2970.227

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric News→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→