| 11 th Annual Pediatric Critical Care Colloquium |
| Session/Time | Patient Care/Sat, 3:00 - 4:00 PM |
| Title | Pediatric Critical Care Physicians Attitudes Concerning Board Re-Certification |
| Author | JJ Dallessio, MD; D Bigos, MD |
| Affiliation | Division of Critical Care, Nemours Children's Clinic, The Children's Hospital of Southwest Florida, Ft. Meyers, FL, Division of Critical Care, Temple University Children's Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA |
| Introduction | The American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) and their Critical Care Subboard certifies physicians in general Pediatrics as well as critical care. In 1987 the general pediatric certification changed from a lifetime certification to 7 years. Candidates are eligible for subspecialty credentialing after they are certified in general pediatrics. To re-certify in a pediatric subspecialty ,.active certification in general pediatrics is not required. This study evaluates the current credentials and attitudes of pediatric intensivists on the re-certification process. |
| Method | An interactive questionnaire was desi&ied for access o:i the Pediatric Critical Care Medicine m eb page (www.PedsCCM. wustl. edu). Respondents were questioned on pediatric and critical care board certifications, re-certification plans, reason to re-cenify in pediatrics and critical care, current practice settiiia aae, sex, years in practice, and perception of issues in re-certification. Results were coiiiplied and analyzed usin- a Student's t-test. Statistical significance was defined as a p value <0.05. < 0.05 |
| Result | 50 board certified pediatric iiitensivists responded. The mean age was 42.3 years, NNith 74% (37/50) males and 26% (23150) females. The majority of respondents practiced in an academic setting (82%, 41/50). The average respondent had 9.4 5.2 years of critical care experience, with 6.7 ± 5.3 year-s in their ( urrent location Lifetime certification in general pediatrics (GP) was present in 54% (27150) of respondents. There was no difference in intensivists Nvith active certification in GP and critical care medicine (CCM) (46/50 and 48/50). There was a statistical difference in physicians eligible for re-certification when compari.n- GP vs. CCIM (I /23 vs. 2 8/3 1, p < 0.05)<0. 05). Although there was iinifbrm agreement (49/50) concerning intentions to re-certification in CCNL a small portion (12%, 6/50) of respondents did not support the concept of critical care re- certification for a variety of reasons. No conclusive ageement concem i- recertification in GP (23 in-favor 27 opposed) was obtained Finally, 44% of the respondents incorrectly responded that re-cer ficatioti in critical care ii3ediciiie also recertified them n eiieral pediatrics Although there was iinifbrm agreement (49/50) concerning intentions to re-certification in CCNL a small portion (12%, 6/50) of respondents did not support the concept of critical care re- certification for a variety of reasons. No conclusive ageement concerning recertification in GP (23 in-favor 27 opposed) was obtained Finally, 44% of the respondents incorrectly responded that re-certificatioti in critical care medicine also recertified them in general pediatrics |
| Conclusion | Pediatric Critical Care physicians re-certify in the critical care subspecialty more frequently than in general pediatrics. A significant perceiitace of pliysicians incorrectly perceive re-certification in critical care also re-ceriifies them in general pediatrics. This stiidy's Iimted response size may restrict general conclusions, yet it emphasizes the importance Pediatric intensivists place on their credentials. Finanlly, the study identifies the World Wide Web as an expedient and economical fashion. |
Use your browser's back button to return to the appropriate index of abstracts...
Back to PCCC 98 Abstract Introduction | Back to PCCC 1998