Parrottpatton0190

Quality is a systems issue and requires system solutions. The ABFM has had a long commitment to assessing quality and has an opportunity to lead the way in reimagining quality measurement and assessment.The American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) is exploring the development of an ABFM Journal Club as a part of its continuing certification portfolio. To benchmark this effort, we reviewed the journal article activities of 8 other American Board of Medical Specialties boards. This paper identifies the principles that will drive the design of the optional ABFM lifelong learning and self-assessment activity. Articles for consideration will be identified through an explicit structured search process. A National Journal Club Committee will choose the top 100 articles based on methodologic rigor, generalizability and relevance to family medicine, and potential to change practice. A postactivity assessment instrument will require mastery learning of new clinical findings and support deeper learning, with the goal of supporting personal physicians in keeping up to date and informing shared decision-making.The American Academy of Family Physicians has 72,600 active members and a robust continuing medical education platform. A foundational principle of their work is an assumption of an intrinsic motivation of physicians to learn in order to better take care of their patients and communities. This commentary presents their vision of individualized learning portfolio in which individual family physicians utilize data to identify their gaps of knowledge and performance over time and use a varirty of CME, including performance improvement, to address and lessen those gaps, with the Academy serving as a navigator and facilitator, all while supporting intrinsic motivation to learn and improve.American Boards of Medical Specialties have emphasized single point in time testing for summative assessment of cognitive expertise necessary for board certification. In 2016, the American Board of Anesthesiology introduced Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology (MOCA), a longitudinal assessment platform that provides diplomates formative feedback with continuous questions over time and adapts questions to areas of knowledge weaknesses over time. This paper describes the rationale, history, and early results of the American Board of Anesthesiology MOCA platform.

Traditionally the role of certifying boards has been to hold physicians accountable for demonstrating standards of competence. In recent years, the authority of continuing board certification has been challenged, due to multiple factors that have shifted the dynamics. The breadth and depth of new information, combined with the pressures of system barriers and administrative burdens, can make it challenging for clinicians stay current and maintain their own competency. Absent feedback about their performance, physicians presume they're practicing effectively. The resulting gap between confidence and competence can also lead physicians to make errors of which they may be unaware. In this environment, assessment and accountability are more important than ever.

The authors present four key areas to address to move forward with a board certification system that is effective, relevant, and respected. First, boards should set and communicate the specific expectations of specialists. Second, boards should use tece on their primary responsibility to set and evolve standards for competence and to conduct rigorous assessments of physicians. The methods boards use for assessments should evolve to meet the changing needs of physicians. Collaboration between educators and assessors provides more educational choice, relieves burdens, and supports physicians' commitment to lifelong learning. By working together with physicians, educators and assessors advance their shared goal of supporting physicians to work at the top of their capability and ultimately, optimize patient care.Family Medicine was a child of the 1960s. Triggered by compelling social need for care outside of large hospitals, Family Medicine emphasized access to personal physicians based in the community. As a protest movement, the ABFP required ongoing recertification for all Diplomates, with both independent examination and chart audit. Fifty years later, society and health care have changed dramatically, and it is time again to consider how Board Certification must respond to those change. We propose three interlocking arguments. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ldc203974-imt1b.html First, even before COVID-19, health and health care have been in a time of fundamental transformation. Second, given the role Board Certification plays in supporting improvement of healthcare, Board Certification itself must respond to these changes. Third, to move forward, ABFM and the wider Board community must address a series of wicked problems - i.e., problems which are both complex-with many root causes-and complicated- in which interventions create new problems. The wicked problems confronting board certification include 1) combining summative and formative assessment, 2) improving quality improvement and 3) reaffirming the social contract and professionalism and its assessment.

Optical microscopic (OM) evaluation of peripheral blood (PB) cells is still a crucial step of the laboratory haematological workflow. The morphological cell analysis is time-consuming and expensive and it requires skilled operator. To address these challenges, automated image-processing systems, as digital morphology (DM), were developed in the last few years. The aim of this multicentre study, performed according to international guidelines, is to verify the analytical performance of DM compared with manual OM, the reference method.

Four hundred and ninety PB samples were evaluated. For each sample, two May Grunwald-stained and Giemsa-stained smears were performed and the morphological evaluation of cells was analysed with both DM and OM. In addition, the assessment times of both methods were recorded.

Comparison of DM versus OM methods was assessed with Passing-Bablok and Deming fit regression analysis slopes ranged between 0.17 for atypical, reactive lymphocytes and plasma cells (LY(AT)) and 1.24 for basophils, and the intercepts ranged between -0.