Résumés
Abstract
Performance on medical licensing examinations has been previously shown to be predictive of performance in practice. However, licensing examinations are closed-book and real-world medical practice increasingly requires doctors and patients to consult resources to make evidence-informed decisions. To best assess the ability of physicians and physicians-in-practice to avail themselves of point-of-care clinical resources and tools, open-book components may have an emerging role in high-stakes examinations.
Résumé
Il a déjà été démontré que la performance lors des examens d’aptitude ou de certification en médecine prédit la performance dans l’exercice professionnel réel. Cependant, ces examens se déroulent à livre fermé alors que dans la pratique, les médecins et les patients sont de plus en plus appelés à consulter des ressources pour prendre des décisions fondées sur les données probantes. Pour mieux évaluer la capacité des médecins et des médecins en exercice à se servir des ressources et des outils cliniques sur le lieu de soins, les examens à livre ouvert auraient peut-être un nouveau rôle à jouer dans les examens à enjeux élevés.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Brailovsky C, et al. Association between licensing examination scores and resource use and quality of care in primary care practice. JAMA. 1998;280(11):989-96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.989.
- De Champlain AF, Ashworth N, Kain N, Qin S, Wiebe D, Tian F. Does pass/fail on medical licensing exams predict future physician performance in practice? a longitudinal cohort study of Alberta physicians. J Med Reg. 2021;106(4):17-26. https://doi.org/10.30770/2572-1852-106.4.17.
- Wenghofer E, Klass D, Abrahamowicz M, et al. Doctor scores on national qualifying examinations predict quality of care in future practice. Med Educ. 2009;43(12):1166-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03534.x.
- Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, et al. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ. 2004;170(11):1678-86. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1040498.
- Densen P. Challenges and opportunities facing medical education. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2011;122:48-58.
- Aakre CA, Pencille LJ, Sorensen KJ, et al. Electronic knowledge resources and point-of-care learning: a scoping review. Acad Med. 2018;93(11S):S60-S7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002375.
- Schwartz KL, Roe T, Northrup J, Meza J, Seifeldin R, Neale AV. Family medicine patients’ use of the internet for health information: a MetroNet study. JABFM. 2006;19(1):39-45. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.19.1.39.
- Huang GJ, Penson DF. Internet health resources and the cancer patient. Cancer invest. 2008;26(2):202-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/07357900701566197.
- The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. CanMEDS Framework. 2015. Available at https://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/canmeds/canmeds-framework-e [Accessed on April 20, 2022].
- The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. History Of CanMEDS. 2022. Available at https://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/canmeds/about/history-canmeds-e. [Accessed on April 20, 2022].
- Medical Council of Canada. Examination objectives overview. 2022. Available at https://mcc.ca/objectives/ [Accessed on April 20, 2022].
- Tim Hortons. Tim Hortons Nutrition Guide. Jan 2022. Available at https://cdn.sanity.io/files/czqk28jt/staging_th_ca/82529bea7aa2f018b8a793c1d71c115ca10af930.pdf. [Accessed on April 20, 2022].
- MD Calc. Framingham Risk Score for Hard Coronary Heart Disease. https://www.mdcalc.com/framingham-risk-score-hard-coronary-heart-disease. [Accessed on April 20, 2022].
- Durning SJ, Dong T, Ratcliffe T, et al. Comparing open-book and closed-book examinations: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2016;91(4):583-99. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000977.
- Sam AH, Reid MD, Amin A. High‐stakes, remote‐access, open‐book examinations. Med Educ. 2020;54(8):767-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14247.
- Jervis CG, Brown LR. The prospects of sitting 'end of year' open book exams in the light of COVID-19: A medical student's perspective. Med Teach. 2020;42(7):830-1. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1766668.
- Zagury-Orly I, Durning SJ. Assessing open-book examination in medical education: The time is now. Med Teach. 2020:1-2. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1811214.
- Norcini J, Anderson M, Bollela V, et al. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 conference. Med Teach. 2011;33:206-14. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.551559.
- Schuwirth LWT, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Changing education, changing assessment, changing research? Med Educ. 2004;38(8):805-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01851.x.