The Experts below are selected from a list of 5694 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gary L Freed - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Use of Board Certification in ambulatory surgery center credentialing: a pilot study.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 2020Co-Authors: Kelly M Dunham, Dianne Singer, Gary L FreedAbstract:: Ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) play a considerable role in providing surgical care in the United States. However, compared to hospitals, ASCs may have less oversight and less-well-developed policies for credentialing and privileging. Specialty Board Certification is one metric for measuring physician competence. What proportion of ASCs currently requires Board Certification for privileging is unknown. This article examines the relationship between Board Certification and privileging policies at ASCs in the United States. A telephone survey of privileging personnel among a convenience sample of 139 freestanding ASCs with two or more specialty services was conducted between February and May 2007. Fifty out of 81 eligible ASCs completed the survey, resulting in a cooperation rate of 62 percent. More than half of ASCs surveyed require that surgical specialists (54 percent, N=27), nonsurgical specialists (56 percent, N=22), and non-American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) specialists (56 percent, N=24) be Board certified at some point during their tenure. Among ASCs that call for Board Certification during physician tenure, 11 percent (N=3) require surgical specialists, 5 percent (N=1) require nonsurgical specialists, and 12 percent (N=3) require non-ABMS specialists to hold current Board Certification at the point of initial privileging. Twenty-nine ASCs (59 percent) allow physicians to retain their privileges after Certification expires. Ensuring safe medical care necessitates coordination across healthcare organizations and regulatory agencies. Nevertheless, our results indicate that almost half of multispecialty ASCs are not using this measure of physician competence issued by specialty Boards as part of their privileging process.
-
changes in hospitals credentialing requirements for Board Certification from 2005 to 2010
Journal of Hospital Medicine, 2013Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Kelly M Dunham, Acham GebremariamAbstract:OBJECTIVE In 2005, we conducted a study of the prevalence of Board Certification requirements for hospital privileging and found that one-third of hospitals did not require pediatricians to be Board certified. In 2010, the American Board of Pediatrics implemented the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. To examine changes in the policies of hospitals regarding requirements for Board Certification, we surveyed privileging personnel at hospitals across the country. STUDY DESIGN Telephone survey between April 2010 and June 2010 of privileging personnel at a random sample of 220 hospitals. RESULTS Of the 220 hospitals, 23 were ineligible because they had no pediatricians on staff, and 26 hospitals refused to participate. The remaining 154 hospitals completed the survey, resulting in a 78% participation rate. Compared with our findings in 2005, in 2010 a greater proportion of hospitals now require Board Certification for general pediatricians (80% vs 67%, P = 0.141) and pediatric subspecialists (86% vs 71%, P = 0.048). Among these hospitals, a larger proportion (24% vs 4%) now requires Board Certification for all pediatricians at the point of initial privileging. However, a greater proportion of hospitals reported that they make exceptions to their Board Certification policies (99% vs 41%). CONCLUSION In the 5 years since our previous study, a larger proportion of hospitals now require pediatricians to be Board certified, although the proportion of hospitals that make exceptions to this policy has increased twofold. Hospitals appear to be incorporating the MOC program into their privileging policies. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2013;8:298–303. © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine
-
perspectives and preferences among the general public regarding physician selection and Board Certification
The Journal of Pediatrics, 2010Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Kelly M Dunham, Sarah J Clark, Matthew M DavisAbstract:Objectives To characterize parental attitudes regarding Board Certification and other factors that influence selection of physicians to care for children. Study design A web-based survey administered in 2008 to a random sample of 3621 adults ≥18 years of age stratified by parents and non-parents. Proportion of respondents who view Board Certification and other measures of quality as important factors in selecting a physician to care for children. Results Survey completion rate was 62%. Almost all (95%) believe it is important or very important for doctors who care for children to be assessed on their quality of care, receive high ratings from patients (91%), and pass a written test at regular intervals (88%). Most reported that recommendations from friends or family (84%) and Board Certification (82%) were important or very important factors in choosing a physician for their child. Seventy-seven percent of parents stated that they would be likely to change their child's physician if he/she did not maintain Board Certification Conclusion Parents report a preference for Board-certified physicians and expect them to participate in Maintenance of Certification. Greater understanding of quality measures and the Board Certification process would empower consumers to make more informed decisions in selecting a physician for their children.
-
health plan use of Board Certification and reCertification of surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists in contracting policies
Archives of Surgery, 2009Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Kelly M Dunham, Dianne SingerAbstract:Objectives To characterize the role of Board Certification in general surgeon, surgical specialist, and nonsurgical subspecialist credentialing and contracting policies and to examine possible variation among different types of health plans. Design Telephone survey conducted from October 27, 2006, through March 30, 2007. Setting Health plans across the United States. Participants Health plan credentialing personnel from a random sample of 223 health plans stratified by enrollment size, plan type, Medicaid enrollment, and tax status. Main Outcome Measures Proportion of health plans that require specialty Board Certification at initial contract or at some point during association with the plan and health plan requirements for reCertification. Results Of 223 health plans, 9 were ineligible, and credentialing personnel completed the telephone survey in 176, which resulted in an overall response rate of 82%. More than 60% of the health plans in this study did not require surgical specialists, general surgeons, or nonsurgical subspecialists ever to be Board certified to contract with the plan. Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported that they did not require surgeons (65%) or nonsurgical subspecialists (63%) with time-limited Board Certification to recertify in their specialty. More than half of the health plans reported that they made exceptions to their Board Certification policies based on geographic or network need. Conclusions Most health plans did not use specialty Board Certification to assess surgeon and nonsurgical subspecialist competence.
-
use of Board Certification and reCertification in hospital privileging policies for general surgeons surgical specialists and nonsurgical subspecialists
Archives of Surgery, 2009Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Kelly M Dunham, Dianne SingerAbstract:Objectives To better understand the relationship between Board Certification and credentialing policies for surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists and to examine possible variation in use of Board Certification among different types of hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants Telephone survey conducted from November 14, 2006, through March 16, 2007, of the privileging personnel among a random sample of 235 nonchildren's hospitals stratified by teaching status, bed size, metropolitan statistical area, system affiliation, and tax status. Main Outcome Measures Proportion of hospitals that require specialty Board Certification to gain privileges and hospital requirements for reCertification. Results Of 235 hospitals, 11 were ineligible and 183 completed the telephone interview, resulting in an overall response rate of 82%. Approximately one-third of hospitals did not require surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists ever to be Board certified to receive hospital privileges. Among the 109 hospitals that required Certification at some point, only 5 (5%) required surgeons and 3 (3%) required nonsurgical subspecialists to be Board certified at the point of initial privileging. More than three-fourths of hospitals had exceptions to their Certification policies for surgeons and 84 (77%) had them for nonsurgical subspecialists. Eighty-two percent of all hospitals and two-thirds of hospitals whose policies required reCertification allowed surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists to retain privileges when their Board Certification expired. Conclusion Most hospitals do not consistently use Board Certification to ensure physician competence at their institutions.
Kelly M Dunham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Use of Board Certification in ambulatory surgery center credentialing: a pilot study.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 2020Co-Authors: Kelly M Dunham, Dianne Singer, Gary L FreedAbstract:: Ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) play a considerable role in providing surgical care in the United States. However, compared to hospitals, ASCs may have less oversight and less-well-developed policies for credentialing and privileging. Specialty Board Certification is one metric for measuring physician competence. What proportion of ASCs currently requires Board Certification for privileging is unknown. This article examines the relationship between Board Certification and privileging policies at ASCs in the United States. A telephone survey of privileging personnel among a convenience sample of 139 freestanding ASCs with two or more specialty services was conducted between February and May 2007. Fifty out of 81 eligible ASCs completed the survey, resulting in a cooperation rate of 62 percent. More than half of ASCs surveyed require that surgical specialists (54 percent, N=27), nonsurgical specialists (56 percent, N=22), and non-American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) specialists (56 percent, N=24) be Board certified at some point during their tenure. Among ASCs that call for Board Certification during physician tenure, 11 percent (N=3) require surgical specialists, 5 percent (N=1) require nonsurgical specialists, and 12 percent (N=3) require non-ABMS specialists to hold current Board Certification at the point of initial privileging. Twenty-nine ASCs (59 percent) allow physicians to retain their privileges after Certification expires. Ensuring safe medical care necessitates coordination across healthcare organizations and regulatory agencies. Nevertheless, our results indicate that almost half of multispecialty ASCs are not using this measure of physician competence issued by specialty Boards as part of their privileging process.
-
changes in hospitals credentialing requirements for Board Certification from 2005 to 2010
Journal of Hospital Medicine, 2013Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Kelly M Dunham, Acham GebremariamAbstract:OBJECTIVE In 2005, we conducted a study of the prevalence of Board Certification requirements for hospital privileging and found that one-third of hospitals did not require pediatricians to be Board certified. In 2010, the American Board of Pediatrics implemented the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. To examine changes in the policies of hospitals regarding requirements for Board Certification, we surveyed privileging personnel at hospitals across the country. STUDY DESIGN Telephone survey between April 2010 and June 2010 of privileging personnel at a random sample of 220 hospitals. RESULTS Of the 220 hospitals, 23 were ineligible because they had no pediatricians on staff, and 26 hospitals refused to participate. The remaining 154 hospitals completed the survey, resulting in a 78% participation rate. Compared with our findings in 2005, in 2010 a greater proportion of hospitals now require Board Certification for general pediatricians (80% vs 67%, P = 0.141) and pediatric subspecialists (86% vs 71%, P = 0.048). Among these hospitals, a larger proportion (24% vs 4%) now requires Board Certification for all pediatricians at the point of initial privileging. However, a greater proportion of hospitals reported that they make exceptions to their Board Certification policies (99% vs 41%). CONCLUSION In the 5 years since our previous study, a larger proportion of hospitals now require pediatricians to be Board certified, although the proportion of hospitals that make exceptions to this policy has increased twofold. Hospitals appear to be incorporating the MOC program into their privileging policies. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2013;8:298–303. © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine
-
perspectives and preferences among the general public regarding physician selection and Board Certification
The Journal of Pediatrics, 2010Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Kelly M Dunham, Sarah J Clark, Matthew M DavisAbstract:Objectives To characterize parental attitudes regarding Board Certification and other factors that influence selection of physicians to care for children. Study design A web-based survey administered in 2008 to a random sample of 3621 adults ≥18 years of age stratified by parents and non-parents. Proportion of respondents who view Board Certification and other measures of quality as important factors in selecting a physician to care for children. Results Survey completion rate was 62%. Almost all (95%) believe it is important or very important for doctors who care for children to be assessed on their quality of care, receive high ratings from patients (91%), and pass a written test at regular intervals (88%). Most reported that recommendations from friends or family (84%) and Board Certification (82%) were important or very important factors in choosing a physician for their child. Seventy-seven percent of parents stated that they would be likely to change their child's physician if he/she did not maintain Board Certification Conclusion Parents report a preference for Board-certified physicians and expect them to participate in Maintenance of Certification. Greater understanding of quality measures and the Board Certification process would empower consumers to make more informed decisions in selecting a physician for their children.
-
health plan use of Board Certification and reCertification of surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists in contracting policies
Archives of Surgery, 2009Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Kelly M Dunham, Dianne SingerAbstract:Objectives To characterize the role of Board Certification in general surgeon, surgical specialist, and nonsurgical subspecialist credentialing and contracting policies and to examine possible variation among different types of health plans. Design Telephone survey conducted from October 27, 2006, through March 30, 2007. Setting Health plans across the United States. Participants Health plan credentialing personnel from a random sample of 223 health plans stratified by enrollment size, plan type, Medicaid enrollment, and tax status. Main Outcome Measures Proportion of health plans that require specialty Board Certification at initial contract or at some point during association with the plan and health plan requirements for reCertification. Results Of 223 health plans, 9 were ineligible, and credentialing personnel completed the telephone survey in 176, which resulted in an overall response rate of 82%. More than 60% of the health plans in this study did not require surgical specialists, general surgeons, or nonsurgical subspecialists ever to be Board certified to contract with the plan. Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported that they did not require surgeons (65%) or nonsurgical subspecialists (63%) with time-limited Board Certification to recertify in their specialty. More than half of the health plans reported that they made exceptions to their Board Certification policies based on geographic or network need. Conclusions Most health plans did not use specialty Board Certification to assess surgeon and nonsurgical subspecialist competence.
-
use of Board Certification and reCertification in hospital privileging policies for general surgeons surgical specialists and nonsurgical subspecialists
Archives of Surgery, 2009Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Kelly M Dunham, Dianne SingerAbstract:Objectives To better understand the relationship between Board Certification and credentialing policies for surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists and to examine possible variation in use of Board Certification among different types of hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants Telephone survey conducted from November 14, 2006, through March 16, 2007, of the privileging personnel among a random sample of 235 nonchildren's hospitals stratified by teaching status, bed size, metropolitan statistical area, system affiliation, and tax status. Main Outcome Measures Proportion of hospitals that require specialty Board Certification to gain privileges and hospital requirements for reCertification. Results Of 235 hospitals, 11 were ineligible and 183 completed the telephone interview, resulting in an overall response rate of 82%. Approximately one-third of hospitals did not require surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists ever to be Board certified to receive hospital privileges. Among the 109 hospitals that required Certification at some point, only 5 (5%) required surgeons and 3 (3%) required nonsurgical subspecialists to be Board certified at the point of initial privileging. More than three-fourths of hospitals had exceptions to their Certification policies for surgeons and 84 (77%) had them for nonsurgical subspecialists. Eighty-two percent of all hospitals and two-thirds of hospitals whose policies required reCertification allowed surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists to retain privileges when their Board Certification expired. Conclusion Most hospitals do not consistently use Board Certification to ensure physician competence at their institutions.
Dianne Singer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Use of Board Certification in ambulatory surgery center credentialing: a pilot study.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 2020Co-Authors: Kelly M Dunham, Dianne Singer, Gary L FreedAbstract:: Ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) play a considerable role in providing surgical care in the United States. However, compared to hospitals, ASCs may have less oversight and less-well-developed policies for credentialing and privileging. Specialty Board Certification is one metric for measuring physician competence. What proportion of ASCs currently requires Board Certification for privileging is unknown. This article examines the relationship between Board Certification and privileging policies at ASCs in the United States. A telephone survey of privileging personnel among a convenience sample of 139 freestanding ASCs with two or more specialty services was conducted between February and May 2007. Fifty out of 81 eligible ASCs completed the survey, resulting in a cooperation rate of 62 percent. More than half of ASCs surveyed require that surgical specialists (54 percent, N=27), nonsurgical specialists (56 percent, N=22), and non-American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) specialists (56 percent, N=24) be Board certified at some point during their tenure. Among ASCs that call for Board Certification during physician tenure, 11 percent (N=3) require surgical specialists, 5 percent (N=1) require nonsurgical specialists, and 12 percent (N=3) require non-ABMS specialists to hold current Board Certification at the point of initial privileging. Twenty-nine ASCs (59 percent) allow physicians to retain their privileges after Certification expires. Ensuring safe medical care necessitates coordination across healthcare organizations and regulatory agencies. Nevertheless, our results indicate that almost half of multispecialty ASCs are not using this measure of physician competence issued by specialty Boards as part of their privileging process.
-
health plan use of Board Certification and reCertification of surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists in contracting policies
Archives of Surgery, 2009Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Kelly M Dunham, Dianne SingerAbstract:Objectives To characterize the role of Board Certification in general surgeon, surgical specialist, and nonsurgical subspecialist credentialing and contracting policies and to examine possible variation among different types of health plans. Design Telephone survey conducted from October 27, 2006, through March 30, 2007. Setting Health plans across the United States. Participants Health plan credentialing personnel from a random sample of 223 health plans stratified by enrollment size, plan type, Medicaid enrollment, and tax status. Main Outcome Measures Proportion of health plans that require specialty Board Certification at initial contract or at some point during association with the plan and health plan requirements for reCertification. Results Of 223 health plans, 9 were ineligible, and credentialing personnel completed the telephone survey in 176, which resulted in an overall response rate of 82%. More than 60% of the health plans in this study did not require surgical specialists, general surgeons, or nonsurgical subspecialists ever to be Board certified to contract with the plan. Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported that they did not require surgeons (65%) or nonsurgical subspecialists (63%) with time-limited Board Certification to recertify in their specialty. More than half of the health plans reported that they made exceptions to their Board Certification policies based on geographic or network need. Conclusions Most health plans did not use specialty Board Certification to assess surgeon and nonsurgical subspecialist competence.
-
use of Board Certification and reCertification in hospital privileging policies for general surgeons surgical specialists and nonsurgical subspecialists
Archives of Surgery, 2009Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Kelly M Dunham, Dianne SingerAbstract:Objectives To better understand the relationship between Board Certification and credentialing policies for surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists and to examine possible variation in use of Board Certification among different types of hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants Telephone survey conducted from November 14, 2006, through March 16, 2007, of the privileging personnel among a random sample of 235 nonchildren's hospitals stratified by teaching status, bed size, metropolitan statistical area, system affiliation, and tax status. Main Outcome Measures Proportion of hospitals that require specialty Board Certification to gain privileges and hospital requirements for reCertification. Results Of 235 hospitals, 11 were ineligible and 183 completed the telephone interview, resulting in an overall response rate of 82%. Approximately one-third of hospitals did not require surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists ever to be Board certified to receive hospital privileges. Among the 109 hospitals that required Certification at some point, only 5 (5%) required surgeons and 3 (3%) required nonsurgical subspecialists to be Board certified at the point of initial privileging. More than three-fourths of hospitals had exceptions to their Certification policies for surgeons and 84 (77%) had them for nonsurgical subspecialists. Eighty-two percent of all hospitals and two-thirds of hospitals whose policies required reCertification allowed surgeons and nonsurgical subspecialists to retain privileges when their Board Certification expired. Conclusion Most hospitals do not consistently use Board Certification to ensure physician competence at their institutions.
-
use of Board Certification and reCertification of pediatricians in health plan credentialing policies
JAMA, 2006Co-Authors: Gary L Freed, Dianne Singer, Indu Lakhani, John R C Wheeler, James A StockmanAbstract:ContextHealth plans conduct credentialing processes to select and retain qualified physicians who will provide high-quality care to their subscribers. One of the tools available to health plans to help ensure physician competence is assessment of Board Certification status.ObjectiveTo determine the credentialing policies of health plans regarding the use of Board Certification and reCertification for general pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsTelephone survey conducted February through July 2005 of credentialing personnel from a US national sample of 244 health plans stratified by enrollment size, Medicaid proportion, and for-profit or not-for-profit status.Main Outcome MeasuresProportion of health plans that require general or subspecialty Board Certification at initial contract or at any time during association with the plan and reCertification to maintain credentialing or to bill as a specialist or subspecialist; percentage of physicians credentialed in each health plan and credentialing goals for each plan regarding the proportion of physicians to be Board certified.ResultsResponse rate was 193 of 244 (79%). Overall, 174 (90%) of the plans do not require general pediatricians to be Board certified at the time of initial credentialing, and only 41% ever require a general pediatrician to become Board certified. Similarly, only 80 (40%) ever require subspecialists to become Board certified in their subspecialty. Although 80 of 192 (41%) report requiring reCertification of general pediatricians, almost half do not have a time frame in which reCertification must occur. Seventy-seven percent of plans allow physicians to bill as subspecialists with expired certificates.ConclusionsThese findings, although specific to pediatrics, likely apply to other primary care disciplines and raise questions regarding the ability of plans to ensure initial or continued competence of their credentialed physicians. Growing public concern regarding patient safety, as well as demonstrated patient preferences for certified physicians, will likely result in greater emphasis on quality assessments in physician credentialing.
Stephen H Miller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
specialty Board Certification and clinical outcomes the missing link
Academic Medicine, 2002Co-Authors: Lisa K Sharp, Philip G Bashook, Martin S Lipsky, Sheldon D Horowitz, Stephen H MillerAbstract:PURPOSE:Specialty Board Certification status is often used as a standard of excellence, but no systematic review has examined the link between Certification and clinical outcomes. The authors evaluated published studies tracking clinical outcomes and Certification status. METHOD:Data sources consisted of studies cited between 1966 and July 1999 in OVID-Medline, psychological abstracts (PsycLit), and the Educational Research Information Clearinghouse (ERIC). Screening criteria included: only U.S. patients and physicians used as subjects; verified specialty Board Certification status by an American Board of Medical Specialties' (ABMS') member Board using the ABMS database or derivative sources; described selection criteria for patients and physicians; selected nationally recognized standards of care for outcomes; and nested patient data by individual physician. The computerized searches that were conducted in 1999 identified 1,204 papers; one author and a research assistant selected 237 papers based on subject relevance, and reduced the list to 56 based on study quality. The authors independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify 13 of the 56 papers containing 33 separable relevant findings. RESULTS:Of the 33 findings, 16 demonstrated a significant positive association between Certification status and positive clinical outcomes, three revealed worse outcomes for certified physicians, and 14 showed no association. Three negative findings and one finding of no association were identified in two papers with insufficient case-mix adjustments in the analyses. Meta-analytic statistics were not feasible due to variability in outcome measures across studies. CONCLUSIONS:Few published studies (5%) used research methods appropriate for the research question, and among the screened studies more than half support an association between Board Certification status and positive clinical outcomes.
Elaine C Bell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Osteopathic specialty Board Certification.
The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 2020Co-Authors: Ronald E Ayres, Stephen Scheinthal, Cheryl Gross, Elaine C BellAbstract:The Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists continually assesses the skills of osteopathic physician specialists in response to the growth of specialization in the osteopathic medical profession. Most recently, the Bureau has mandated that all osteopathic specialty certifying Boards fully implement Osteopathic Continuous Certification no later than January 1, 2013. The authors discuss communication efforts related to this change, including a survey to assess physician needs in light of the new requirement. Also reported are rates of osteopathic specialty Board Certification and reCertification for 2010.
-
Osteopathic specialty Board Certification.
The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 2020Co-Authors: Armando F Ramirez, Elaine C BellAbstract:Specialty Board Certification, though voluntary, has become an indispensable designation for many osteopathic physicians. The authors report rates of osteopathic specialty Board Certification and reCertification for osteopathic physicians. In the past year, osteopathic specialty Boards have proposed conjoint examinations in hospice and palliative medicine as well as in sleep medicine. Plans for the addition of a new conjoint examination for undersea and hyperbaric medicine are also described. As the healthcare environment continues to evolve, the American Osteopathic Association, the Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists, and the 18 osteopathic specialty Boards continue to adapt to meet the professional needs of osteopathic physicians.
-
american osteopathic association specialty Board Certification
The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 2010Co-Authors: Ronald E Ayres, Stephen Scheinthal, Cheryl Gross, Elaine C BellAbstract:Specialty Board Certification is an important tool in recog nizing physicians who take extra measures to establish their skills in any number of specialty areas. The American Osteo pathic Association Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists, which oversees the 18 specialty certifying Boards, continues to amend existing policies and implement new policies to improve the Certification process. Among these policies, the authors describe new collaboration efforts, the development of the osteopathic continuous Certification process, and revi sions to Board eligibility. An update on AOA Certification awards, including certificates of added qualifications, is also provided.
-
osteopathic specialty Board Certification
The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 2009Co-Authors: Ronald E Ayres, Stephen Scheinthal, Cheryl Gross, Elaine C BellAbstract:: Specialty Board Certification, though voluntary, has become an indispensable designation for many osteopathic physicians. The authors report rates of osteopathic specialty Board Certification and reCertification. On the recommendation of the Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists--and as a result of recent action by the American Osteopathic Association Board of Trustees--a new osteopathic continuous Certification model will be used by all 18 member Boards. This model firmly establishes osteopathic specialty Board Certification as an ongoing process that helps to ensure patient health and safety by measuring and monitoring physician competence. In addition, time limits on Board eligibility have been established for Certification candidates. As the healthcare environment continues to evolve, the American Osteopathic Association, the Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists, and the 18 osteopathic specialty Boards continue to adapt to meet the professional needs of osteopathic physicians.
