ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 199

Evaluating the Perception Among Rheumatologists of Maintenance of Board Certification Programs in the United States

Amr H Sawalha and Patrick Coit, Division of Rheumatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Meeting: 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Maintenance of certification

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Sunday, October 21, 2018

Title: Education Poster

Session Type: ACR Poster Session A

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: There continues to be a debate about the value and purpose of maintenance of certification programs (MOC) created by board-certifying organizations. Physicians, echoed by multiple societies including the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), have raised concerns questioning the recertification process. The goal of this survey study is to assess the impact, value, and purpose of maintenance of board certification in rheumatology.

Methods: A survey designed to assess the impact and perceived value of maintenance of board certification in rheumatology was sent via email to 3,107 rheumatologists within the US. The survey addressed issues related to how rheumatologists perceive negative and positive impacts of MOC, and how this program might affect various aspects related to rheumatology practice and patient access to care.

Results: A total of 515 rheumatologists completed the survey. With an estimated number of ~5,000 full-time practicing rheumatologists in the US, this sample size gives a margin of error of <5% with 95% confidence that the responses accurately reflect the views of rheumatologists. The majority (74.8%) did not think there is significant additional value in MOC, beyond what is already achieved from Continuing Medical Education, or that MOC is valuable in terms of improving patients care (63.5%). The majority felt that the primary reason for creating MOC is financial well-being of board certifying organizations (43.4%) or to satisfy administrative requirements in health systems (30%). Only 15.1% believed improving patient care was the primary reason for MOC. The majority of rheumatologists believed board certification should be a life-long credential (63.7%), and 75.2% favor a state legislation to remove MOC as a requirement for employment, insurance reimbursement, or securing clinical privileges. Notably, when asked about positive and negative impacts, the majority reported that MOC results in time away from providing patient care (74.6%), time way from family (74%), and psychological stress (69.7%). 65.6% perceived staying current with new knowledge as a positive impact of MOC. When asked about anticipated effects of requiring MOC, 77.7% reported physician burnout, 67.4% early physician retirement, and 63.9% anticipated an effect on reducing the overall number of practicing rheumatologist. Of interest, 58.9% believe board certification in rheumatology should be administered or overseen by other organizations such as the ACR. Of the respondents who reported participating in research activities, 39.6% believed MOC is adversely affecting their ability to perform research or research related activities.

Conclusion: The majority of rheumatologists in the US do not believe there is value for recertification and maintenance of certification in rheumatology. Negative impact was clearly more than any positive impact perceived. Importantly, there is evidence for lack of trust in board certifying organizations among rheumatologists, and the majority of rheumatologists believe MOC contributes to physician burnout, early retirement, and loss in the rheumatology work force. This is alarming given the current and predicted shortage in rheumatologists in the future.


Disclosure: A. H. Sawalha, None; P. Coit, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Sawalha AH, Coit P. Evaluating the Perception Among Rheumatologists of Maintenance of Board Certification Programs in the United States [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018; 70 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/evaluating-the-perception-among-rheumatologists-of-maintenance-of-board-certification-programs-in-the-united-states/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/evaluating-the-perception-among-rheumatologists-of-maintenance-of-board-certification-programs-in-the-united-states/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology