Having recently recertified for the second time, I find myself among the legions of physicians who consider the process to be highly disruptive, expensive, time consuming, and an unwarranted threat to our professional identities and well-being. But that would be an acceptable state if I felt that I could convince myself that the recertification process is a good measure of knowledge and practice. Sadly, it is not.
The questions are, at times, superficial and vague. Conventional study won’t help you here. The Program Improvement Module is a time sink and nothing more. While I do not intend to invite a challenge by the American Board of Internal Medicine, suffice it to say that it seems unlikely that your score reflects the quality of care you deliver, your knowledge of guidelines, your bedside manner, or your clinical diagnostic capabilities.
To top it off, the ABIM now wants the Maintenance of Certification process to be re-initiated within 2 years of passing your recertification.
If the Board has empiric evidence that this process improves physician behavior and performance, I’ll rename this blog "Recertification: We have a winner!" In the meantime, all I can say is recertification, reschmertification. It’s just another example of how ideas that sound good on paper often fail us in practice. Heart failure quality metrics, anyone?
Dr. Hauptman is professor of internal medicine, assistant dean of clinical-translational research at Saint Louis University, and director of heart failure at Saint Louis University Hospital. He is an associate editor for Circulation: Heart Failure, and blogs while staring out his office window at the Arch. Write to Dr. Hauptman at cardnews@frontlinemedcom.com.