Comparison of State Medical Licensing Board Disclosures Regarding Resident Performance for United States Allopathic, Osteopathic, and Foreign Medical Graduates
| Autor: | Michael Anana, Anastasia Kunac, Daniel Matassa, Machteld Hillen, Lisa Pompeo, Michal Gajewski, Tiffany Murano, Neil Kothari |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Complementary and Manual Therapy
media_common.quotation_subject Graduate medical education Context (language use) Disclosure 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine State (polity) Humans Medicine Foreign Medical Graduates media_common Licensure Medical education business.industry Internship and Residency Osteopathic medicine in the United States United States 030205 complementary & alternative medicine Disciplinary action Complementary and alternative medicine Education Medical Graduate Service (economics) Osteopathic Physicians business Discipline Osteopathic Medicine |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Osteopathic Medicine. 120:871-876 |
| ISSN: | 2702-3648 |
| DOI: | 10.7556/jaoa.2020.152 |
| Popis: | 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. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|