			Home About us Contact

Medical Boards (medical + board)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Australian Medical Council: a view from the inside

INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, Issue 4 2001
K. Breen
Abstract Although it has an important role in maintaining medical standards, little is known about the work of the Australian Medical Council (AMC) by members of the medical profession. A non-statutory standards authority, the AMC accredits medical schools in Australia and New Zealand, examines overseas-trained doctors for registration purposes and advises Medical Boards and Health Ministers on registration issues. The AMC, in consultation with Specialist Medical Colleges and others, is currently working on a number of initiatives to ensure standards of medical training and practice, including procedures to recognize new specialties and to accredit externally specialist education and training courses. (Intern Med J 2001; 31: 243,248) [source]

A multimethod study of needs for physician assessment: Implications for education and regulation

THE JOURNAL OF CONTINUING EDUCATION IN THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, Issue 4 2009
Richard Hawkins MD Senior Vice President for Professional, Scientific Affairs
Abstract Introduction: Deficiencies in physician competence play an important role in medical errors and poor-quality health care. National trends toward implementation of continuous assessment of physicians hold potential for significant impact on patient care because minor deficiencies can be identified before patient safety is threatened. However, the availability of assessment methods and the quality of existing tools vary, and a better understanding of the types of deficiencies seen in physicians is required to prioritize the development and enhancement of assessment and remediation methods. Methods: Surveys of physicians and licensing authorities and analysis of the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) Board Action Data Bank were used to collect information describing the nature and types of problems seen in practicing physicians. Focus groups, depth interviews with key professional stakeholders, and state medical board site visits provided additional information about deficiencies in physician competence. Results: Quantitative and qualitative analyses identified (1) communication skills as a priority target for assessment approaches that also should focus on professional behaviors, knowledge, clinical judgment, and health-care quality; and (2) differences between regulatory approaches of licensing and certifying bodies contribute to a culture that limits effective self-assessment and continuous quality improvement. System problems impacting physician performance emerged as an important theme in the qualitative analysis. Discussion: Considering alternative perspectives from the regulatory, education, and practice communities helps to define assessment priorities for physicians, facilitating development of a coherent and defensible approach to assessment and continuing professional development that promises to provide a more comprehensive solution to problems of health-care quality in the United States. [source]

No Smoking Gun: Findings From a National Survey of Office-Based Cosmetic Surgery Adverse Event Reporting

DERMATOLOGIC SURGERY, Issue 11 2003
Rajesh Balkrishnan PhD
Background. Because of recent press reports of adverse outcomes, office-based cosmetic surgery has come under intense scrutiny and associated legislative regulatory action. Objective. To assess the safety of office-based cosmetic surgery through a national survey of state agencies that collect information on adverse patient outcomes. Methods. Medical boards or other responsible authorities were contacted in 48 states to obtain records on adverse outcomes from cosmetic surgery procedures performed in an office-based setting. Results. Five states were able to provide complete information regarding 13 cases of adverse outcomes that resulted from office-based cosmetic surgery procedures. Thirteen states had incomplete information or were unable to provide information. The remaining states reported no adverse outcomes. Information collected by state agencies varies greatly and is inadequate to define the safety of office-based cosmetic surgery practice. Conclusions. The need to regulate physician office surgery on the basis of hospital privileges and office certification is not supported by current data. Mandatory reporting of adverse outcomes from office-based surgery is warranted to identify modifiable risk factors and to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes. [source]

The Space Mission MIR'97: operational aspects

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION, Issue 12 2000
R. Ewald
Background A German astronaut visited the MIR space station between 10 February and 2 March 1997. Together with his Russian colleagues, he conducted a series of scientific investigations before, during and after his stay aboard the MIR station. Research performed during this flight was part of a global space life sciences programme and focused on metabolic homeostasis, fluid balance, calcium homeostasis and cardiovascular regulatory mechanisms. The main goal of the scientific experiments was to use this mission as a milestone to establish international networks of scientific collaboration using space research as a tool for focused research in respective fields. Thus, in most cases the results obtained from the astronaut complemented a series of results obtained on ground and from other flights. In other cases, they extended previous results and opened new fields for future research. Participants Human space flight with astronauts serving as operators and at the same time as test subjects is very complex. Many people, including mission control, a science management team, medical operations, ethics committees and a medical board, participated to harmonize the different requirements, thus making a maximal scientific outcome possible. Conclusion In summary, this space mission may be seen as a model for focused long-term multidisciplinary international research, and demonstrates that space medicine is no longer adventure but science. [source]

Patient Injuries from Surgical Procedures Performed in Medical Offices: Three Years of Florida Data

DERMATOLOGIC SURGERY, Issue 12p1 2004
Brett Coldiron MD, FACP
Background. Many state medical boards and legislatures are in the process of developing regulations that restrict procedures in the office setting with the intention of enhancing patient safety. The highest quality data in existence on office procedure adverse incidents have been collected by the state of Florida. Objective. The objective was to determine and analyze the nature of surgical incidents in office-based settings using 3 years of Florida data from March 2000 to March 2003. Methods. An incidence study with prospective data collection was performed. Individual reports that resulted in death or a hospital transfer were further investigated by determining the reporting physician's board certification status, hospital privilege status (excluding procedure specific operating room privileges), and office accreditation status. Results. In 3 years there were 13 procedure-related deaths and 43 procedure-related complications that resulted in a hospital transfer. Seven of the 13 deaths involved elective cosmetic procedures, 5 of which were performed under general anesthesia and 2 of which were performed with intravenous sedation anesthesia. Forty-two percent of the offices reporting deaths and 50% of the offices reporting procedural incidents that resulted in a hospital transfer were accredited by an independent accreditation agency. Ninety-six percent of physicians reporting surgical incidents were board-certified, and all had hospital privileges. Conclusions. Restrictions on office procedures for medically necessary procedures, such as requiring office accreditation, board certification, and hospital privileges, would have little effect on overall safety of surgical procedures. These data also show that the greatest danger to patients lies not with surgical procedures in office-based settings per se, but with cosmetic procedures that are performed in office-based settings, particularly when under general anesthesia. Our conclusions are dramatically different from those of a recent study, which claimed a 12-fold increased risk of death for procedures in the office setting. [source]

Misconduct in medical research: whose responsibility?

INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, Issue 4 2003
K. J. Breen
Abstract Examples of many types of misconduct in medical research continue to be reported. The true incidence is unknown because there is strong evidence of under-reporting as well as suggestions of increased detection. Risks to research participants may also be increasing, with contributing factors such as increased pressure on researchers to publish and to produce commercialization of their research. Institutions are perceived to typically respond slowly and inadequately to allegations of research misconduct. More could be done to try to prevent such misconduct, such as: (i) educating researchers about research ethics, (ii) assisting and protecting whistleblowers and (iii) instituting processes to adequately and promptly investigate and deal with allegations. In addition, a debate needs to take place as to whether research misconduct allegations should be dealt with at the institutional level or at a national level and whether medical boards should be routinely involved in the more serious breaches of ethical standards by medical practitioners engaged in research. (Intern Med J 2003; 33: 186,191) [source]