Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38992662›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Administration of the American Board of Anesthesiology's virtual APPLIED Examination: successes, challenges, and lessons learned.

Mark T Keegan, Ann E Harman, Thomas M McLoughlin, Alex Macario, Stacie G Deiner, Robert R Gaiser, David O Warner, Santhanam Suresh, Huaping Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mark T KeeganDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Ann E HarmanThe American Board of Anesthesiology, 4200 Six Forks Rd, Suite 1100, Raleigh, NC, 27609, USA.
Thomas M McLoughlinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA, 18103, USA.
Alex MacarioDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Stacie G DeinerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA.
Robert R GaiserDepartment of Anesthesiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
David O WarnerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Santhanam SureshDepartment of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Huaping SunThe American Board of Anesthesiology, 4200 Six Forks Rd, Suite 1100, Raleigh, NC, 27609, USA. huaping.sun@theaba.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Board of Anesthesiology transitioned from in-person to virtual administration of its APPLIED Examination, assessing more than 3000 candidates for certification purposes remotely in 2021. Four hundred examiners were involved in delivering and scoring Standardized Oral Examinations (SOEs) and Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). More than 80% of candidates started their exams on time and stayed connected throughout the exam without any problems. Only 74 (2.5%) SOE and 45 (1.5%) OSCE candidates required rescheduling due to technical difficulties. Of those who experienced "significant issues", concerns with OSCE technical stations (interpretation of monitors and interpretation of echocardiograms) were reported most frequently (6% of candidates). In contrast, 23% of examiners "sometimes" lost connectivity during their multiple exam sessions, on a continuum from minor inconvenience to inability to continue. 84% of SOE candidates and 89% of OSCE candidates described "smooth" interactions with examiners and standardized patients/standardized clinicians, respectively. However, only 71% of SOE candidates and 75% of OSCE candidates considered themselves to be able to demonstrate their knowledge and skills without obstacles. When compared with their in-person experiences, approximately 40% of SOE examiners considered virtual evaluation to be more difficult than in-person evaluation and believed the remote format negatively affected their development as an examiner. The virtual format was considered to be less secure by 56% and 40% of SOE and OSCE examiners, respectively. The retirement of exam materials used virtually due to concern for compromise had implications for subsequent exam development. The return to in-person exams in 2022 was prompted by multiple factors, especially concerns regarding standardization and security. The technology is not yet perfect, especially for testing in-person communication skills and displaying dynamic exam materials. Nevertheless, the American Board of Anesthesiology's experience demonstrated the feasibility of conducting large-scale, high-stakes oral and performance exams in a virtual format and highlighted the adaptability and dedication of candidates, examiners, and administering board staff.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyCOVID-19Educational MeasurementSpecialty BoardsCertificationClinical CompetenceHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2United StatesVirtual APPLIED ExaminationVirtual candidate experiencesVirtual examiner experiencesVirtual Objective Structured Clinical ExaminationVirtual Standardized Oral Examination

Identifiers

PMID38992662
PMCPMC11241991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.