Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 1 of 20

From the Editor

The American Board of Radiology Examination Production: Past, Present, and Future

2015:8[1]:1-2

by Lane F. Donnelly, MD, ABR Trustee

The ABR produces a vast amount of examination content each year. Although the diagnostic radiology oral exam was administered for the last time in 2014, the ABR continues to administer a wide variety of exams for the diagnostic radiology, radiation oncology, and medical physics disciplines. In 2014, the ABR was responsible for the production of more than 200 individual examinations that were administered to more than 5,000 first-time examinees. These initial certification and Maintenance of Certification (MOC) exams spanned from the evaluation of basic knowledge to more advanced case-based and image-rich clinical management evaluation. The exams also included a variety of different formats, from single-best-answer, multiple-choice items administered in standardized exam centers, to case-based oral examinations administered in Louisville, Kentucky, by trained oral examiners (in radiation oncology, medical physics, and interventional radiology). For additional information on exam performance, please refer to the “Scoring and Results” section of a particular exam on the ABR website at www.theabr.org (links can be found under the “Exam Information” sidebars on the Web pages for each discipline). This enormous quantity of exams is due in part to an effort made by the ABR to increase convenience for ABR examinees. For example, many exams are now administered more than once per year, necessitating the creation of multiple exams within the same discipline or content area. These additional exams are needed to ensure that items exposed in one administration do not have to be used in a second administration within the same year, as well as to give candidates multiple opportunities to take a given exam. In addition, some exams allow examinees to self-select content for better alignment with their particular practice profile. While this self-selection process is advantageous to examinees, it also necessitates that additional exams be created. These exams may or may not be

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 2 of 20

administered in a given year, depending on how often a particular exam area is selected by examinees. Currently, it is somewhat challenging to predict which exams will be selected more frequently in a self-selection exam scenario. Therefore, multiple exams are created in each exam area to accommodate examinees and avoid the potential problem of overexposure of content. To produce the massive amount of content each year, the ABR enlists the help of more than 450 volunteers from the diagnostic radiology, radiation oncology, and medical physics communities. These content experts dedicate their precious time and knowledge each year to generate the necessary material for all ABR exams. The volunteer group is carefully chosen based on their experience within a given specialty or subspecialty area. They are highly regarded individuals who come from many different practice environments all over the United States. We are greatly in debt to these volunteers, as the ABR examination process would not be possible without them. New ABR volunteers, as well as ABR trustees (who are also volunteers), are required to participate in the MOC program. This rigorous volunteer selection process helps ensure that the content on the exams is both reliable and valid. Please visit the ABR website at http://www.theabr.org/volunteers for additional information regarding ABR volunteer opportunities. As the ABR heads into 2015, exam production efforts are predicted to increase even further. Final preparations are currently being made for the first administrations of the new diagnostic radiology Certifying Exam, as well as the first radiation oncology MOC practice-profiled exam. Preparations are also under way for the new Interventional Radiology/Diagnostic Radiology (IR/DR) certification pathway. We anticipate that volunteers will begin to create content for the IR/DR exams in the near future. For more information on the new IR/DR certification, go to www.theabr.org/ic-irdr-landing. For more information regarding all upcoming exams, please visit the ABR website at www.theabr.org.

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 3 of 20

Ask the Director

The ABR Implements New Connections Center 2015:8[1]:3

by Valerie P. Jackson, MD, Executive Director

At the ABR, we are always looking for ways to improve your experiences, as a candidate or

diplomate, in your interactions with our organization. Most of you communicate with us by

phone, FAX, or email. In order to provide timely, accurate, and consistent responses to every

inquiry, the ABR has implemented a Connections Center. A team of trained, customer-focused

individuals serves as the first tier of response to phone calls and email messages from 7 a.m. to

5 p.m. MST weekdays. They are able to answer most questions immediately, or to forward the

call or message to the appropriate ABR staff expert. Each inquiry is tracked from initiation to

resolution to ensure that nothing falls through the cracks and that responses are timely. The

goal is to have a response completed within one business day, but most answers are

immediate.

The Connections Center has already improved our candidate and diplomate satisfaction with

their interactions with the ABR, as reflected in the many compliments received by Connections

Center staff. Many are delighted at how quickly they are able to speak to a “live” person, rather

than listening to a long recording. Callers and emailers also have expressed their appreciation

for the time that ABR staff members take to thoroughly explain and help them understand ABR

information, or to walk them through an entire process over the phone.

Since its inception in September, 2014, there have been 7,164 inquiries: 3,879 by phone; 2,623

by email; 599 by FAX; and the remainder by postal mail. Our turnaround time for resolution of

the issues has gone from days or weeks to minutes and hours. An added benefit is that other

ABR staff members are no longer taking time to answer the “frequently asked” questions—such

as the steps to reset one’s password—and thus, they can get more work done and concentrate

on more complex inquiries.

If you or a colleague have questions, feel free to call the Connections Center at (520) 519-2152,

Ext. 5000, or send us an email at information@theabr.org.

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 4 of 20

Focus on Maintenance of Certification

Frequently Asked Questions 2015[8]1:4-5

by Vincent P. Mathews, MD, ABR Trustee

In this issue of The BEAM, I’d like to address several “Frequently Asked Questions” about Maintenance of Certification (MOC). ABR staff members report that they often receive the following questions, either by phone or email: 1. What’s the difference between PQRS and MOC:PQRS? PQRS (Physician Quality Reporting System) is a program sponsored by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that uses a combination of incentive payments and negative payment adjustments to promote reporting of quality information by eligible professionals (EPs). PQRS is not administered by the ABR and does not require participation in MOC. MOC:PQRS was an opportunity for physicians participating in PQRS to earn an additional incentive payment by working with an MOC entity and completing requirements more frequently than is required to maintain board certification. There were no penalties associated with this program, which was available from 2011 to 2014. The ABR did not sponsor this program but assisted diplomates who wanted to earn this incentive by tracking their additional requirements and submitting names of MOC participants who met the requirements to CMS. This program was offered by CMS from 2011-2014; the ABR did not charge any fee for the assistance it provided. 2. I’m waiting to receive my new certificate. How can I get a letter of MOC participation? Log in to myABR (https://myabr.theabr.org/login), and you will see a light blue bar across the top of your page. Click on the “View/Print” button or the “Email a Copy” button for your personalized letter. You can also check your public reporting status, MOC status, and account statement on this page.

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 5 of 20

3. Can I earn CME credit for my fellowship, or for completing the overall MOC program requirements? Yes. Under current ABR policy, a diplomate may receive one hour of self-assessment CME (SA-CME) credit for each week of fellowship training. The AMA also issues certificates of participation to doctorate-level professionals completing either the ABR initial board certification process or Maintenance of Certification (MOC) criteria. For ABR, this includes those with MD, DO, and PhD degrees. The certificate is available for board certification awarded on or after April 1, 2012. For MOC, the certificate is available for every 10 years of participation. AMA membership is not required, but the AMA charges a $75 fee for the certificate. The AMA assigns 60 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditsTM for completing board certification or Maintenance of Certification requirements. Further information, including the application form, may be found on the AMA’s website at www.ama-assn.org/go/cmeforms.

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 6 of 20

Focus on Residents

Improving the Core Examination 2015[8]1:6-7

by Donald J. Flemming, MD, ABR Trustee

According to ABR psychometric statistics, as well as feedback from an exit survey of test takers,

the Core Examination has improved between the 2013 and 2014 test cycles. To make this

better quality possible, the examination development process embraces the principles of the

Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle. The purpose of this report is to give the reader an inside look

at examination development and how data and feedback are used to improve the performance

of the exam.

The process of developing any given ABR examination is carried out by volunteers and is very

thoughtfully planned and executed. The steps to examination development are as follows:

1. Plan—Item Writing: Volunteers form committees assigned to perform the task of exam question writing for the various categories on ABR exams. The volunteers serve for three to six years in this role. Exam question writers are provided training on item writing that includes the “do’s and don’ts” of developing a well-performing test question. Writing a single ideal test question takes up to 30 minutes! The volunteers then participate in reviewing submitted items with other members of the category committee during a webinar on nearly a monthly basis. Questions are accepted, revised, or rejected based on feedback during this webinar conference. Each accepted question is placed in a database and tagged as to its modality, disease category, and exam-level appropriateness.

2. Plan and Do—Module Development: Each category has a blueprint of how its questions should be distributed, based on modality and disease category. The purpose of the blueprint is to ensure that the module developed provides a broad assessment of the category and to prevent overemphasis on any particular category. The blueprints for each category are available for review at www.theabr.org/ic-dr-core-exam#core_blueprints. Questions from the database are then added to fill the module grid, and this provides another opportunity for item review and revision.

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 7 of 20

3. Do—Test Assembly Meeting: Each category module is then assembled to create the entire form for an examination. At the time of the test assembly meeting, every single test item is reviewed by a panel meeting in Tucson, which includes a senior representative of each category’s item-writing committee, an exam content editor, and exam development employees of the ABR. Each test item is reviewed for quality, and panel members outside the respective specialty or subspecialty provide valuable feedback regarding the appropriateness of the question. Items are approved, revised, or rejected by the panel members.

4. Study—Post-exam Assessment: Following the administration of an examination, the quality of item writing is evaluated in two different ways. First, item performance is assessed psychometrically to determine how difficult the item was and whether it separated candidates who passed or failed the examination. Second, all examinees are given the opportunity to complete a survey to provide feedback about whether the items in every category were clinically relevant and level appropriate.

5. Act—Feedback to Item-writing Committees: Valuable feedback regarding the performance of specific items is then provided to each category’s item-writing committee. These data are used to improve the quality of item writing. The cycle then continues.

The outcome of this Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle has led to data-driven improvement in the quality

of the Core Examination between the first administration in 2013 and the second test in 2014.

Happily, the number of suboptimal-performing questions decreased, and overall examinee

satisfaction improved between the two examinations. The data, however, show that there is

room for further improvement. This knowledge will add to the continuous effort of perfecting

the Core Examination and will allow the ABR to best achieve its stated mission of protecting the

public.

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 8 of 20

Focus on Diagnostic Radiology

Study Resources for the Core and Certifying Exams 2015[8]1:8-9

by Kay H. Vydareny, MD, ABR Associate Executive Director for Diagnostic Radiology

and Acting Associate Executive Director for Interventional Radiology

As the June Core Exam administrations are rapidly approaching, and the first administrations of the Certifying Exam will be next October, ABR candidates are naturally concerned about how to study and what resources are available. The ABR has many online study guides and other resources, and two new helpful resources for the Core Exam are also available on the websites of RadioGraphics and Academic Radiology. For the Core Exam, see the following resources on the ABR website:

Core Exam Study Guide Core Exam Quality and Safety Syllabus Core Exam Sample Content Core Exam Blueprints Core Practice Exam

The Core Exam Study Guide is a list of topics that COULD be included in each category of the examination. Since each version of the Core Exam is a subset of the entire domain, not all topics are included in each examination when it is given. The Core Exam Sample Content is a complete sample of the topics that DID occur on a single version of the examination. It is important to remember that not all examinations are identical, so the version delivered on a given test administration may include different topics. The Core Exam Blueprints show the major topics covered on every version of the examination for each category and indicate the approximate percentage of each category’s questions that are devoted to that topic. The committees for each category use these blueprints when they are assembling the examination. The Quality and Safety Syllabus covers the information that will be included on the quality and safety portions of the examination. In addition, the study guides for many of the categories include quality and safety issues specific to that category, so they should also be reviewed. Finally, the Core Practice Examination should be viewed by everyone who is going to take the

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 9 of 20

examination. It includes 100 examination questions from a prior exam administration so candidates can see the different types of questions included on the examination. In addition, the exam software for the practice examination is identical to the software that will be used during the “real” examination; becoming facile with the software will allow a candidate to concentrate on the questions during the examination and not have to focus on negotiating the software.

For the Certifying Exam, see the following resources on the ABR website:

Noninterpretive Skills Syllabus Essentials of Diagnostic Radiology Study Guide Study Guides for Clinical Practice Modules Radioisotope Safety Exam (RISE) Study Guide

The Noninterpretive Skills (NIS) Syllabus covers the information that will be tested in the required NIS module given on each Certifying and MOC examination. Study guides for each of the clinical practice modules, three of which will be chosen by each candidate, are lists of topics that COULD be included in each category; not all topics will be included in each version of the examination, however, since each version is a subset of the entire domain. The Essentials of Diagnostic Radiology Study Guide is similar in form to the other clinical practice modules. This module is required for those who will take the Certifying Exam; it is not included in MOC examinations. Finally, radioisotope safety items, which comprise the RISE, will be included on every Certifying Exam; a RISE Study Guide is also available on the website. RadioGraphics is providing a new searchable database of articles that will help residents prepare for the Core Exam. Residents can choose from a list of topics that will be included in the exam, derived from the ABR’s Diagnostic Radiology Core Exam Study Guide. Simply go to http://pubs.rsna.org/page/radiographics/abr-core-exam-study-guide, click on the topic headings to open an outline, and find RSNA journal articles chosen by experts in the field as covering material particularly relevant to each section of the exam. Bookmark an article to read later, using the “Add to Favorites” link on the article page. An article in the January 2015 issue of Academic Radiology is also a useful resource for residents preparing to take the Core Exam. The article, “ABR Core Examination Preparation: Results of a Survey of Fourth-Year Radiology Residents Who Took the 2013 Examination,” co-authored by Anup S. Shetty, MD; Joseph R. Grajo, MD; Summer Decker, PhD; Darel E. Heitkamp, MD; Kristen K. DeStigter, MD; ABR Trustee Duane G. Mezwa, MD; and Lori Deitte, MD, is available at http://www.academicradiology.org/article/S1076-6332(14)00369-9/abstract. The purpose of the online survey was to gather information regarding resources and study strategies to share with program directors and future resident classes. In addition to questions that covered examination results, residents weighed in on perceived value of enumerated study resources, case-based and didactic teaching conferences, board reviews, study materials for noninterpretive skills, and multidisciplinary conference attendance.

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 10 of 20

Focus on Radiation Oncology

Update on the Development of the Radiation Oncology Initial Certification Qualifying Examinations

2015;8[1]:10-12

by Paul E. Wallner, DO; Aaron Gudenkauf, BA; Anthony Gerdeman, PhD; and Jennifer Willis, MS

Primary goals in development of the radiation oncology (RO) initial qualifying (computer-based) examinations are fairness, reliability, and relevance. In pursuit of these goals, the process and product undergo ongoing scrutiny and modification as the radiation oncology Residency Review Committee (RO RRC) adds new requirements to the training curriculum, and as the ABR trustees and examination development team feel are necessary and appropriate. A significant change in the RO exam-development process occurred in late 2011, when the eight clinical category committees were reorganized. Prior to January 1, 2012, the reorganization implementation date, individual items (questions) were provided by an ad hoc cadre of item writers who had minimal interaction with each other and functioned in loosely organized committees. A significant burden of examination development rested on the shoulders of the committee chairs, ABR radiation oncology trustees, and internal examination development staff. Many submitted items were duplicative, required significant editorial revision, or lacked sufficient relevance. After January 1, 2012, each clinical category committee was to be composed of approximately 15 members serving for one or two three-year terms, who had full responsibility for the creation of new written examination items, and who also served as the pool of examiners for the certifying (oral) examination. The qualifying and certifying examination tasks of each committee were co-chaired by different individuals, and all committee members, including the co-chairs, participated in multiple training sessions to improve the quality of written items. Working with the assistant executive director for radiation oncology (AED/RO), examination development staff and RO trustees create a general blueprint for how the examination should be populated. The blueprint is based on importance of the issues, curriculum requirements,

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 11 of 20

disease site incidence and prevalence, impact of radiation oncology on disease management, and the tri-annual clinical practice analyses, which are survey based. The qualifying examination co-chairs are then brought into the process to assign specific items in the blueprint to members of their committees. When the multiple-choice items are finally submitted, each undergoes a rigorous internal editing process to ensure lack of ambiguity and clarity of the stems (questions), keys (correct responses), and distractors (incorrect responses). The options (keys and distractors) should be similar in length and style, and there should be only a single clearly correct response. All submitted items must be accompanied by a peer-reviewed reference. In a limited number of circumstances, web-based references such as publications of the National Cancer Institute are accepted. Clinical stage-related questions are referenced in the most recent edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Staging Manual, which is currently in its 7th edition. An exception is made if the item relates to a specific previously reported clinical study, the results of which employed an earlier edition or a parallel, site-specific staging classification. Items for the Medical Physics for RO and the Radiation and Cancer Biology examinations are developed in a similar process by committees devoted exclusively to those topics, with input from RO trustees, the AED/RO, and clinical category committee members. Once submitted items are subjected to the process above, they may be placed in actual examinations as “test questions,” meaning that their scores are not counted for or against the candidate on that examination, but instead, the questions are analyzed to be certain that they are appropriate discriminators (answered correctly by a majority of individuals who passed the examination). Items that are poor discriminators may be either discarded or revised and re-tested. Items that prove to be valid discriminators are placed in the item inventory for later use. Each year, the clinical committees select a cohort of specific items to be included in the next examination, and these items are then reviewed at a “test assembly” meeting in January, where a group of trustees, committee chairs, and committee members assigns an Angoff score to each item. This criterion-based scoring system is widely employed by testing entities, and it estimates the number of examination-takers who would respond correctly to the item. Thus, performance results are based on the validity of each individual item, rather than an arbitrary curve with a preselected failure rate. “Proof” of the quality and validity of the examination development process rests in an ongoing review of test results and feedback from candidates obtained through an immediate post-examination survey, which is distributed after each exam administration. The survey is completed and returned to the ABR prior to release of the examination results to avoid bias in responses related to an individual’s actual outcome. In 2014, 197 candidates took the clinical qualifying examination. A total of 74 (38%) responded to the clinical examination survey. Their responses indicated the following:

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 12 of 20

The examination was clear and concise. 97%

They finished with > 20 minutes remaining. 61%

The examination difficulty was about right. 62%

The examination content was relevant. 75%

Clinically related calculations were reasonable. 100%

Category difficulty was appropriate. 66-91% (range of 8 categories)

A total of 209 candidates took the basic science (radiation and cancer biology, and radiation physics) qualifying examinations. Of the total, 103 candidates (49%) responded to the 2014 survey. Although pass/fail rates for these examination sections are not appreciably different from the clinical examinations, they are generally taken one year earlier in the training process, and we should expect that the basic science knowledge and calculation requirements of the examinations would be perceived less favorably. The responses indicated the following:

The examinations were clear and concise. 93%

The various biology categories were appropriately difficult. 84-92%

Difficulty of the biology examination was about right. 88%

Candidates were just able to complete the examination in the allotted time.

43%

Candidates were unable to complete the examination in the allotted time.

38%

As can be seen above, responses from the physics survey did indicate one significant area of concern: 43 percent of respondents indicated that they were able to complete the examination in the allotted time, but 38 percent were not able to complete the examination within that block of time. We are working with RO trustees and psychometric department staff to analyze the specific issues involved in this concern, but in the interim, and beginning with the physics examination administration in July 2015, candidates will be given an additional 30 minutes in which to complete the examination. Other results of the physics survey included the following:

The biology examination was clinically relevant. 81%

Difficulty of the physics examination was about right. 19%

The physics examination was clinically relevant. 48%

The various physics categories were appropriately difficult. 57-77%

Based on internal reviews, candidate examination performance, and survey responses from candidates, we believe that the revised initial certification qualifying examination development process is meeting its stated goals, but re-evaluation will be continuous. Details of revisions to the certifying examination process and implementation will be described in subsequent reports.

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 13 of 20

Focus on Medical Physics

Changes in Policies and Procedures 2015;[8]1:13-14

by ABR Medical Physics Trustees Jerry D. Allison, PhD; Geoffrey S. Ibbott, PhD; and

J. Anthony Seibert, PhD

The ABR has made a number of changes to its policies and procedures that may be of interest

to medical physicists, as well as medical physics (MP) residents, students, and program

directors. These include a new limit of 10 years to become board eligible after passing the Part

1 exam and changes in ABR audits of applications. This article also includes a chart displaying

the number of Part 1 applications received during the past four years.

New 10-year Rule

The ABR has instituted a 10-year rule requiring that a candidate must become board eligible no

more than 10 years after passing the MP Part 1 exam. The main reason for this change in policy

is because the ABR has a number of MP candidates who passed Part 1 yet have not continued

to pursue initial certification. This rule will allow the ABR to close the files of these candidates.

We believe that 10 years is a sufficient amount of time for almost all candidates to become

board eligible, but we will grant extensions for reasonable situations. This policy is now in

effect, but candidates who are currently approaching their 10-year limit will have until 2017 to

become certified. For further information, see the policy by clicking here.

Changes in Audit Requirements

The ABR audits a small percentage of applications to ensure program directors and candidates

are following its requirements. In general, we leave this task to the program directors and also

receive records of those requirements from CAMPEP. Past audits have shown that the vast

majority of candidates meet our requirements. Recently, we made a number of changes in how

we evaluate candidates who are being audited. These changes have been driven by our desire

to align our requirements, as much as possible, with those of CAMPEP. The two main changes

relate to course requirements for bioscience and medical physics.

Bioscience Requirement

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 14 of 20

Beginning in 2016, only anatomy and/or physiology and radiation biology will be accepted as

bioscience courses. Applicants must have at least six hours of bioscience courses, but these

hours could be met by completing either two three-hour courses, or one four-hour course and

one two-hour course.

Medical Physics Courses

Beginning in 2016, the ABR will require the following medical physics courses:

Radiological Physics and Dosimetry

Radiation Safety and Dosimetry

Fundamentals of Medical Imaging

Radiation Therapy Physics

Credits from these courses must total at least 12 hours. Variation in the naming of courses is

acceptable; these courses match those required by CAMPEP. For more information, view the

new policy by clicking here.

Applications

As can be seen in the chart below, the amount of Part 1 applications in 2013 and 2014 returned

to historic numbers. We suspect that the large increases in 2011 and 2012 were due to

candidates who wished to enter the system before the requirements changed. The number of

candidates entering the system is closely related to the number of candidates certified each

year.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2011 2012 2013 2014

Part 1 Applications

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 15 of 20

Longtime ABR Receptionist Jacky Prendergast Retires 2015[8]1:15

The ABR’s longtime receptionist, Jacky Prendergast, often referred to as “the voice of the ABR,”

retired in December 2014, having served 10.5 years in her position.

Jacky was always pleasant to everyone she encountered, whether personally or on the phone, and she was always ready to lend a helping hand. She had a special skill for making others feel welcome, whether they were standing on the other side of the reception desk or outside a locked door.

Just recently, Jacky became a grandmother to twins, whom she plans to visit in her free time, when she’s not spending time with Donnie, her significant other. We wish Jacky a very happy retirement and thank her for her many years of service to the ABR!

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 16 of 20

ABR Adds New Interventional Radiology Webpage 2015[8]1:16

The ABR has created a new webpage outlining the expected components and rules for the new Interventional Radiology/Diagnostic Radiology (IR/DR) primary certification, as well as its impact on the Vascular and Interventional Radiology (VIR) subspecialty, and suggestions for candidates currently in training.

In 2012, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) approved the IR/DR certificate to recognize interventional radiology as a unique medical specialty addressing the diagnosis and treatment of diseases through expertise in diagnostic imaging, image-guided minimally invasive procedures, and the evaluation and clinical management of patients with conditions amenable to these methods.

The Committee on Requirements of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has approved the program requirements for the Interventional Radiology Residency Program. These requirements can be seen on the ACGME website, and the application for the new residency will be available early in 2015. All applying sites will require an on-site visit.

Although the new IR/DR certificate is not yet available, it will be one of four primary certificates offered by the ABR. Those certified in IR/DR will have demonstrated competency to practice in diagnostic radiology, as well as the full scope of interventional radiology.

The ABR is targeting 2017 for the first IR/DR Certifying Examination. Those who have a VIR subspecialty certificate will automatically receive the new IR/DR certificate as long as they are up to date with their MOC requirements.

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 17 of 20

Registration Windows for Subspecialty Exams 2015[8]1:17

The 2016 Vascular/Interventional (VIR) Subspecialty Oral Exam will take place on May 15-16 in Louisville, Kentucky. The initial VIR registration period will be from August 1 - September 30, 2015. Anyone registering in October will be charged an additional late fee of $400. For other subspecialties, registration opened on February 1 and will run through April 30. Registrations will still be accepted in May, but with a late fee of $400.

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 18 of 20

Spotlight on an ABR Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Participant 2015[8]1:18-19

This is the first of a series of BEAM articles spotlighting an ABR Maintenance of Certification (MOC) participant. Christopher M. Straus, MD, is a board-certified radiologist and serves as an associate professor and director of student education for radiology at the University of Chicago. He also obtained his undergraduate and medical degrees, and served his residency and fellowship in interventional radiology, at the University of Chicago.

Dr. Straus serves on numerous committees linked to house staff training and the medical school curriculum, in addition to undertaking clinical research on the topic of mesothelioma. He is active in professional organizations, having served as past president of the Alliance of Medical Student Educators in Radiology, as a board member of the Association of University Radiologists, as chair of the American Roentgen Ray Society Education Accreditation Compliance Committee, and as a member of the MOC musculoskeletal section subcommittee. Dr. Straus is also active with the American College of Radiology (ACR) on topics of education of both students and house staff. He is the recipient of numerous awards, and his research interests and publications cover a broad spectrum of imaging-centered topics, including professionalism and education.

His more innovative efforts have centered on how radiologists can educate all students more effectively, regardless of their intended specialization. He is promoting a more uniform national educational model for medical schools, with expanded materials developed to highlight the inescapable role of imagers in the patient experience.

When we asked Dr. Straus why he chose his specialty, he told us, “I guess I am in all reality a visual person. The opportunity and promise of working with images, and needing to solve and effectively communicate diagnostic challenges with only portions of the full story line, was exciting. Although I have a great love of procedures and taking action, in many ways I related to my father, who was a surgical pathologist. We both adopted roles as physician consultants and relished the ability to interpret cases across a wide spectrum of knowledge.”

We next asked Dr. Straus how his specialty meets and differs from his expectations. “Certainly the persistent new challenges and knowledge generated demand that one strive to incorporate these changes on a continual basis. This process remains ever inviting and very similar to the better aspects of being a student, when one feels the satisfaction and excitement of achieving goals,” he said. “Also, just as all practicing physicians hope to optimize patient outcomes, medical imaging is rich in this sense of purpose, given its direct impact on a patient’s trajectory

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 19 of 20

and outcome based on one’s efforts. Both with specific procedures or diagnosis, we can infer and feel immediately how our skills have assisted each patient throughout the workday.

“Did radiology differ from my expectations? Absolutely, in that I remain surprised by how long-held traditions and the relatively conservative medical profession manifest in resistance to change; and that the role of the radiologist remains so misunderstood by not only the general public, but also by many of those within medicine.”

Dr. Straus feels that “the deep importance of being board certified and maintaining that endorsement of specialized skills is paramount in the ability to function most effectively, and truly in providing the best outcomes and value to my patients. To be sure, the ABR and its role not only validate our individual skills, but the board collectively endorses our entire specialty in this era where so many increasingly see imaging as a skill easily adopted and performed. As technology and ease of access have improved, and radiologists have brought more and more experience and advancement to medical care, the need for the ABR has actually increased significantly. We must not only self-regulate and hold ourselves to the highest of standards and performance, but we need the ABR to assist us in translating this value to our patients by promoting radiologists to function at an equivalent high level of skill.”

When we asked Dr. Straus for an example of how MOC activities have helped him to improve his practice, he replied, “The MOC process not only generates a pathway to demonstrate known skills, but it also introduces newer skills. The process validates and justifies the confidence we expect of our customers. Most importantly, it is absolutely needed to maintain optimal communication and successful hand-offs among physicians, which is so necessary for ideal team-based patient care. If members of the team are not all functioning at an equivalent high level of skill, you risk both the patient’s outcome and amplify the anxiety experienced by both referring physicians and patients.

“Without question I love interacting with patients. It makes my day when I have either the opportunity to impact their care or they make the effort to find me, seeking my skill since they believe it provides added value to their experience or that of their families. Being ill can be a trying and alienating experience, and I feel deeply that imaging actually can be a source of comfort and answers. I never hesitate to engage with either my patients or referring physicians, many of whom have become friends. Being as available as possible with solid, strong answers has become a daily goal, and maintaining my board certification gives me the added confidence to continue to tackle this challenge.”

On a lighter note, Dr. Straus has a real passion for gardening. “I confess that I can usually find great satisfaction and solace in both the growing of most things and in landscaping. Just give me a few hours in the dirt, and I guarantee I will change in my outlook. There is definite pleasure in orchestrating this type of effort, both throughout the season but also year to year, since every action is in the context of the larger end goal.”

Source: The BEAM, Spring 2015 www.theabr.org Page 20 of 20

List of Society Attendance 2015[8]1:20

The ABR sponsors a booth at numerous society meetings throughout the year. Printed

materials are available, and ABR representatives are in attendance to answer your questions.

To see a list of society meetings at which the ABR plans to have a booth in 2015, please click

here.