http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4431-2711
Figures
Abstract
Vehicles for life-long assessment such as Maintenance of Certification tend to focus on generalist neurosurgical knowledge. However, as neurosurgeons advance in their careers, they tend to narrow their practice and increase volumes in certain specific types of operations. Failing to test the type of procedures most relevant to the practitioner is a lost opportunity to improve the knowledge and practice of the individual neurosurgeon. In this study, we assess the neurosurgical community’s appetite for designations of board-recognized Recognized Focused Practice (RFP). We administered a validated, online, confidential survey to 4,899 neurosurgeons (2,435 American Board of Neurological Surgery (ABNS) Diplomates participating in MOC, 1,440 Diplomates certified prior to 1999 (grandfathered), and 1,024 retired Diplomates). We received 1,449 responses overall (30% response rate). A plurality of respondents were in practice 11–15 years (18.5%), in private practice (40%) and participate in MOC (61%). 49% of respondents felt that a RFP designation would not be helpful. For the 30% who felt that RFP would be helpful, 61.3% felt that it would support recognition by their hospital or practice, it would motivate them to stay current on medical knowledge (53.4%), or it would help attract patients (46.4%;). The most popular suggestions for RFP were Spine (56.2%), Cerebrovascular (62.9%), Pediatrics (64.1%), and Functional/Stereotactic (52%). A plurality of neurosurgeons (35.7%) felt that RFP should recognize neurosurgeons with accredited and non-accredited fellowship experience and sub-specialty experience. Ultimately, Recognized Focused Practice may provide value to individual neurosurgeons, but the neurosurgical community shows tepid interest for pursuing this designation.
Citation: Babu MA, Liau LM, Meyer FB (2017) Recognized focused practice: Does sub-specialty designation offer value to the neurosurgeon? PLoS ONE 12(12): e0189105. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189105
Editor: Zachary A. Smith, Northwestern University, UNITED STATES
Received: July 27, 2017; Accepted: November 4, 2017; Published: December 14, 2017
Copyright: © 2017 Babu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.
Funding: This work was supported by the American Board of Medical Specialties Visiting Scholars Program. MAB received funding. http://www.abms.org/initiatives/committing-to-physician-quality-improvement/visiting-scholars-program/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Linda Liau serves on the Board of the American Board of Neurologic Surgery; Fredric Meyer is the Executive Director of the American Board of Neurologic Surgery. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
The lay press and the public have been more attentive in recent years to continuing medical education for practicing surgeons and the safeguards that exist to ensure that practitioners are delivering high-quality care throughout their career. The concept of Maintenance of Certification (MOC), namely, testing throughout a physician’s career to assure competence and safety, was developed under the auspices of ensuring that surgeons remain cognizant of the latest evidence-based practice. MOC has been institutionalized across specialties, and has historically been a general fund of knowledge of assessment. However, as a surgeon’s career progresses, it is not uncommon to develop a “focused practice” with a niche within one of the surgical sub-specialties (i.e. spine or skull base in neurosurgery). To subject all practitioners to a general fund of knowledge exam which may not represent his or her active clinical practice seems to miss the point for the necessity of the exam in the first place.
The American Board of Family Medicine developed a pilot program on Focused Practice designation in Hospital Medicine, given the understanding that many board-certified family physicians practice within a hospital and that this is an area of expertise that should be assessed uniquely. In 2009, the American Board of Internal Medicine also developed a pilot for Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine. Recognition of Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (RFPHM) requires a primary certificate in Family Medicine. The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology is piloting Focused Practice in Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. On March 9th, 2017, the American Board of Medical Specialties released the process by which member boards could seek Focused Practice designation [1].
There are other methods of acknowledging practice expertise used by the American Board of Medical Specialties. A Certificate of Added Qualification (CAQ) is utilized by some member boards, and constitutes a body of knowledge or technique that is outside the traditional scope of the specialty practice. For instance, Sports Medicine or Sleep Medicine could be assessed through a CAQ for Family Medicine.
The pre-requisites for Recognized Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine include the following: “Direct Patient Care Pathway (i.e., full-time hospital practice) with a minimum of 1,000 hospital patient encounters per year in the last 3 years, or 3,000 encounters in the last 3 years. Formal fellowship training completed in the last 3 calendar years in a Hospital Medicine Fellowship program can be counted for a maximum of 1000 patient encounters. Another pathway is the Clinical/Systems Pathway (i.e., full-time hospital medicine professional activity with a part-time hospital practice): a minimum of 250 hospital patient encounters (limited to one encounter per patient per day) per year in the last 3 years, or 750 encounters in the last 3 years. These patient encounters must comprise at least 75% of total clinical activity, and at least 50% of the remaining non-clinical professional time must be directed toward improving the care of hospitalized patients. Each individual will select the appropriate officer of the hospitals where you obtained your patient encounters to attest to your practice levels. Acceptable hospital officers would include the Division Director, Section Chief, Chief Medical Officer, Chair of Family Medicine, Service Line Chief, Medical Director, Chief Executive Officer, President, or Chair of the Board of Directors. Random audits of the attestation process via communication with the selected officer of the hospital, and enrollment in the process is the agreement to this audit process”.
In this program, practitioners must actively participate in MOC to receive recognized focused practice certification. The unique examination involved with full certification was offered first in October 2010. It includes four two-hour sections in one sitting and is valid for 10 years, with a similar fee structure to MOC.
Other specialties, including Radiology, have also explored recognized focused practice designations. The American Board of Radiology discontinued their RFP designations in cardiac CT and brachytherapy after both met with little engagement by their Diplomates.
The American Board of Neurologic Surgery has contemplated whether to offer a recognized focused practice designation in several or all of the sub-specialties (e.g., spine, skull base, etc). Before such a program could be launched, the appetite from Diplomates needed to be gauged. The present study utilized a survey of all American Board of Neurologic Surgery diplomates as to their views on the usefulness of a Recognized Focused Practice designation, which specialties should be included, and whether Diplomates would consider pursuing such a designation.
Methods
A sounding board of clinicians, in concert with the Directors of the American Board of Neurological Surgery and psychometric trained staff, developed a 29 multiple-choice question and free response survey deployed through the online tool, SurveyMonkey. The survey instrument did not collect any personally identifying information and the answers were anonymous and confidential. The survey was administered to 4,899 neurosurgeons (2,435 American Board of Neurological Surgery (ABNS) Diplomates participating in MOC, 1,440 Diplomates certified prior to 1999 (grandfathered), and 1,024 retired Diplomates). Funding support was provided by the ABNS and the American Board of Medical Specialties Visiting Scholars Program. STATA software (College Station, Texas) was employed to perform descriptive analyses. The first author’s Institutional Review Board reviewed and exempted the study (16–003451). We received 1,449 responses overall (30% response rate).
Results
31% of respondents were 50–59, 20% of respondents were 60–69, 9% were 70–79, and 4% were older than 80 (Table 1). 92% of respondents were male and 8% were female (Table 2). 18% had been in practice for 11–15 years, 18% for 16–20 years, 12% for 21–25 years, 15% for 26–30 years, and 18% for more than 35 years (Table 3). Practice location by geography was diverse with the plurality (20%) of respondents from the South Atlantic region (Table 4). Respondents represented diverse practice types including private practice (40%), academic practice (34%), hybrid practice (7%), employed practice (11%) or were retired (6%) (Table 5). 44% were ABNS certified prior to 1999 (Table 6). 61% of respondents participate in Maintenance of Certification (MOC); 40% are grandfathered and do not participate in MOC (Table 7). The majority of respondents had completed some length of fellowship training, up to two years (52%; Table 8). The majority, 62%, of fellowships were unaccredited (Table 9). When asked, 49% of respondents felt that Recognized Focused Practice designation would not be helpful (Table 10). For those who felt that an RFP designation would be helpful, many felt that it help with recognition by their hospital or practice (61.3%), it would motivate them to stay current on medical knowledge (53.4%), or it would help attract patients (46.4%; Table 11). For those not interested in pursuing a recognized focused practice designation, many cited that it would not impact their daily care of patients (66.6%), would not help their hospital or practice (58.9%), and would be another test to pay for (57.9%; Table 12). The most popular suggestions for area of Recognized Focused Practice designation were Spine (56.2%), Cerebrovascular (62.9%), Pediatrics (64.1%), and Functional/Stereotactic (52%; Table 13). The majority of neurosurgeons (35.7%) felt that a Recognized Focused Practice designation should recognize neurosurgeons with accredited fellowship experience, non-accredited fellowship experience, and sub-specialty experience (Table 14). For non-fellowship trained neurosurgeons to pursue Recognized Focused Practice, the majority of respondents believe that tracking case volumes (32.9%) should be utilized (Table 15). Of the 33.7% of respondents who stated that they would pursue a Recognized Focused Practice designation, the most popular fields were spine (42%), oncology (16.7%), and cerebrovascular (11.3%; Table 16 and Table 17).
Conclusion
Recognized focused practice is meant to mirror the day-to-day practice of the practitioner, who after training, likely has specialized in one or a handful of subspecialties. Assessment is thus supposed to be more accurate as it does not reflect areas (such as complex vascular neurosurgery) in which most clinicians would not practice. The desire to offer more relevant assessment must be tempered by not increasing the burden of test taking for those with a highly specialized practice.
Our study showed that survey respondents were fairly mixed in their enthusiasm for a Recognized Focused Practice designation. 30% felt that an RFP designation would be helpful, while 49% felt it would not, and 20% had no opinion (Table 10). For those who thought an RFP designation would be helpful, most (61%) felt it would help with recognition by their practice or hospital. For those who have completed accredited fellowship training (38%) in our study, having recognition of this additional training may provide additional value within a multi-member practice. As hospitals consolidate and combine practices, having recognition of a specific area of expertise could help a practitioner focus on the pathologies/surgeries that he or she is more interested in.
For more senior neurosurgeons, many of whom did not pursue formal fellowship training, their practice now may be highly specialized. Not having a pathway to demonstrate specific training may limit their options. Certifying bodies should not limit practice options for our most senior practitioners, so consideration of an eased structure (“grandfathering”) may allow a pathway to develop to recognize the subspecialty training of more junior practitioners, without boxing out more senior practitioners who may developed a niche practice over decades.
Those most interested in pursuing an RFP designation cited spine as the most popular area of focus. With advancements in minimally invasive techniques, and fellowships devoted to these areas, and given hospital and practitioner remuneration for procedures, it is understandable that those with specialized spine training would want this area denoted and may want to limit practitioners without this area of focus. On the other hand, senior practitioners who have had an evolving practice which now includes minimally invasive spine or other newer techniques, might argue that they should not be subjected to mandatory fellowship training, if they are trying to adopt newer techniques and keep in line with practice advancements.
Internationally, there are four national physician validation systems recognized: the American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification Program, the Federation of State Medical Boards Maintenance of Licensure Program, the Canadian Revalidation Program and the UK Revalidation Program [2]. There have been concerns voiced by some practitioners as to the value of continuing testing, and whether career testing improves clinic practice. For instance, A study of 2601 American Board of Emergency Medicine Continuing Certification test takers found that 74% felt that their medical knowledge was reinforced, increased knowledge (67%), and made them a better clinician (40%) [3]. This was based on self-report, and not correlated to patient outcome or clinical indicators.
Development of validated, practice tailored assessment tools has been explored by other fields including Plastic Surgery [4]. For example, a six week course to teach professionalism to plastic surgery faculty and residents found that a focused curriculum was found worthwhile in teaching professionalism, leadership, and management principles [5]. Peer assisted learning has also been studied; one paper identified trusting peer relationships and found that when a nurturing environment existed, peer assisted learning could be effective in providing feedback on performance for physicians [6].
The type of practice environment a physician is in also may influence his or her affinity for maintenance of certification, and the type of educational offerings provided. For instance, a study of pediatricians enrolled in Maintenance of Certification from 2013–2014 revealed that those involved in quality improvement tended not to work for independent/private practices and were employed full time [7]. Academic or multi-specialty institutions with additional infrastructure may be better equipped to aide in the study of quality improvement necessitated by some MOC pathways.
Education in medical school and residency is being reengineered to provide a seamless continuum to independent practice. The development of the ACGME (American Council for Graduate Medical Education) Milestones and “Entrustable Professional Activities” is meant to specify skills, knowledge, and procedures that trainees should be competent with. Entrustable professional activities are observable and measurable, and are meant to map to competencies and milestones for safety and efficacy [8]. Having additional testing through life-long learning pathways such as MOC helps reinforce this knowledge, and provide updates as the evidence base changes over time.
Having more relevant assessments that mirror the practice of a practitioner has been met with support by other specialties. For example, the family physicians’ development of Performance in Practice Modules (PPMs) which helped demonstrate quality improvement participation was met with enthusiastic support within the field. 29,755 ABFM diplomates completed 38,201 PPMs and 80% stated they would change patient care after completing PPM activities. 90% endorsed a high relevance to practice [9].
Several studies suggest a correlation with higher volume of certain pathologies and procedures, and better outcomes [10–13]. Given this association, designating sub-specialty certification may drive patients to certain practitioners or centers, who in turn may develop unique expertise in treating those conditions.
Ultimately, as neurosurgical practice becomes highly sub-specialized, a formal pathway to recognize specific areas of practice may become more valuable for practitioners and patients alike. As the educational landscape changes, and with more trainees pursuing formal fellowship training, coupled with several studies suggesting procedural repetition and high volumes are correlated with better clinical outcomes, movement towards recognized focused practice designation may continue to gather momentum. At present, the appetite for offering a recognized focused practice designation to neurosurgeons is tepid.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the staff of the American Board of Neurologic Surgery including Barbara Schwartz and Erica Kolhami, the staff of the American Board of Medical Specialties Visiting Scholars Program, including Suzanne Resnick, and Mary Soper for her assistance.
References
- 1.
Specialties ABoM. American Board of Medical Specialties Announces New, Focused Practice Designation 2017.
- 2. Horsley T, Lockyer J, Cogo E, Zeiter J, Bursey F, Campbell C. National programmes for validating physician competence and fitness for practice: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e010368. Epub 2016/04/17. bmjopen-2015-010368 [pii]. pmid:27084276; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4838739.
- 3. Marco CA, Wahl RP, Counselman FL, Heller BN, Harvey AL, Joldersma KB, et al. The American Board of Emergency Medicine ConCert Examination: Emergency Physicians' Perceptions of Learning and Career Benefits. Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23(9):1082–5. Epub 2016/03/29. pmid:27018239.
- 4. Janis JE, Vedder NB, Reid CM, Gosman A, Mann K. Validated Assessment Tools and Maintenance of Certification in Plastic Surgery: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Possibilities. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(4):1327–33. Epub 2016/03/29. 00006534-201604000-00039 [pii]. pmid:27018688.
- 5. Hultman CS, Halvorson EG, Kaye D, Helgans R, Meyers MO, Rowland PA, et al. Sometimes you can't make it on your own: the impact of a professionalism curriculum on the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of an academic plastic surgery practice. J Surg Res. 2013;180(1):8–14. Epub 2013/01/15. S0022-4804(12)01903-8 [pii]. pmid:23312813.
- 6. Tai JH, Canny BJ, Haines TP, Molloy EK. Implementing Peer Learning in Clinical Education: A Framework to Address Challenges In the "Real World". Teach Learn Med. 2016:1–11. Epub 2016/12/21. pmid:27997224.
- 7. Freed GL, Moran LM, Van KD, Leslie LK. Current Workforce of General Pediatricians in the United States. Pediatrics. 2016;137(4). Epub 2016/03/24. e20154242 [pii] peds.2015-4242 [pii]. pmid:27006475.
- 8. Carraccio C, Englander R, Gilhooly J, Mink R, Hofkosh D, Barone MA, et al. Building a Framework of Entrustable Professional Activities, Supported by Competencies and Milestones, to Bridge the Educational Continuum. Acad Med. 2016. Epub 2016/03/10. pmid:26959225.
- 9. Peterson LE, Eden A, Cochrane A, Hagen M. Physician Satisfaction With and Practice Changes Resulting From American Board of Family Medicine Maintenance of Certification Performance in Practice Modules. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016;36(1):55–60. Epub 2016/03/10. 00005141-201603610-00009 [pii]. pmid:26954246.
- 10. Pandey AS, Gemmete JJ, Wilson TJ, Chaudhary N, Thompson BG, Morgenstern LB, et al. High Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Patient Volume Associated With Lower Mortality and Better Outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(3):462–70; discussion 70. Epub 2015/06/26. pmid:26110818; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4869982.
- 11. Dasenbrock HH, Clarke MJ, Witham TF, Sciubba DM, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A. The impact of provider volume on the outcomes after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Neurosurgery. 2012;70(6):1346–53; discussion 53–4. Epub 2012/05/23. 00006123-201206000-00013 [pii]. pmid:22610361.
- 12. Raj R, Bendel S, Reinikainen M, Hoppu S, Luoto T, Ala-Kokko T, et al. Traumatic brain injury patient volume and mortality in neurosurgical intensive care units: a Finnish nationwide study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24(1):133. Epub 2016/11/09. 10.1186/s13049-016-0320-6 [pii]. pmid:27821129; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5100100.
- 13. Zacharia BE, Bruce SS, Carpenter AM, Hickman ZL, Vaughan KA, Richards C, et al. Variability in outcome after elective cerebral aneurysm repair in high-volume academic medical centers. Stroke. 2014;45(5):1447–52. Epub 2014/03/29. STROKEAHA.113.004412 [pii]. pmid:24668204.