Recertification in the United States

Editorial by Buckley From the creation of the first board (in ophthalmology) in 1917 to the late 1960s, the specialty boards in the United States focused exclusively on initial certification. With its inception in 1969, however, the American Board of Family Practice limited the validity of its certificates to seven years, and since then other boards have followed suit, some after attempting voluntary processes that ultimately failed. Of the 24 boards that are members of the American Board of Medical Specialties all have limited, or plan to limit, the duration of validity of their certificates to seven to 10 years.1 According to Benson, the goals of recertification are to improve the care of patients, to set standards for the practice of medicine, to encourage continued learning, and to reassure patients and the public that doctors remain competent throughout their careers.2 To meet these goals, an ideal programme for recertification should have three components for evaluation.3–5 Firstly, to ensure that doctors are providing good care in practice an assessment of patient outcomes is needed. Secondly, to ensure that doctors are aware of recent advances in medicine and have the potential to treat the broad range of less frequent but medically important problems an evaluation of medical knowledge and judgment is needed. Thirdly, to ensure that doctors exhibit professionalism a review of credentials (for example, a valid licence and attestation of competence from the hospital or other local authorities) and the judgments of peers and patients are needed. The assessment of patient outcomes is the most important component of a recertification programme. It directly reassures the public that doctors are performing well, and it is tailored to practice so it offers evaluation of what doctors actually do, rather than what they do in an artificial testing situation. …

[1]  W. McAuliffe Measuring the quality of medical care: process versus outcome. , 1979, The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly. Health and society.

[2]  D. Newble,et al.  The Certification and Recertification of Doctors: Issues in the Assessment of Clinical Competence , 1994 .

[3]  J. Carline,et al.  Predictive validity of certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine. , 1989, Annals of internal medicine.

[4]  W. Manning,et al.  The unreliability of individual physician "report cards" for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease. , 1999, JAMA.

[5]  J. Carline,et al.  Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. , 1993, JAMA.

[6]  B. Kremer Physician Recertification and Outcomes Assessment , 1991, Evaluation & the health professions.

[7]  L. Curry,et al.  Challenge and Vision for Professional Schools in Higher Education@@@Educating Professionals: Responding to New Expectations for Competence and Accountability , 1994 .

[8]  E L Hannan,et al.  Benefits and hazards of reporting medical outcomes publicly. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  A M Epstein,et al.  The outcomes movement--will it get us where we want to go? , 1990, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  W. Simon Oral examinations. , 1947, Northwest dentistry.

[11]  J. Benson Certification and recertification: one approach to professional accountability. , 1991, Annals of internal medicine.

[12]  N. Wintfeld,et al.  Report cards on cardiac surgeons. Assessing New York State's approach. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  J J Norcini Recertification in the medical specialties , 1994, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.