J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2020 Dec 1;120(12):871-876. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2020.152.
While recent streamlining of the graduate medical education process signals an important change from the traditional dichotomy between doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) and US-trained doctors of medicine (USMDs), this new uniformity does not continue into the process for licensure, including state medical licensing verification of training (VOT) forms for DOs, MDs, and foreign medical graduates (FMGs). Wide variability remains.
To document the differences in the performance metrics program that directors are required to disclose to state medical licensing boards for DOs and FMGs compared with USMDs.
VOT forms were collected from all osteopathic and allopathic licensing boards for all US states, Washington DC, and US territories. The authors then reviewed VOT forms for questions pertaining to trainee performance only in states where VOT forms differed for DOs, USMDs, and FMGs. Licensing board questions were categorized as relating to disciplinary action, documents placed on file, resident actions, and nondisciplinary actions by the program.
Fifty-six states and territories were included in the study (50 US states; Washington, DC; and 5 US territories). Most states and territories (46; 82.1%) used the same VOT form for DOs and USMDs. All states and territories except New York used the same form for FMGs and USMDs (55; 98.2%). Of the 14 states with an osteopathic board, Nevada used Federation Credentials Verification Service (FCVS) for DOs only, and 8 states used a unique osteopathic VOT form. Of these 8 osteopathic boards, 3 VOT forms did not ask any questions regarding resident performance during training. Of the remaining 5 forms, all asked about disciplinary actions. Ten states and 1 territory (US Virgin Islands) required the FCVS for both USMDs and FMGs, but not for DOs, while New York required FCVS only for FMGs. Nevada required FCVS only for DOs.
Although VOT requirements for FMGs and USMDs were mostly the same within states, performance metric question sets varied greatly from state to state and within states for osteopathic vs allopathic licensing boards. Implementation of a standardized VOT form for all applicants that includes academic performance metrics may help ensure that medical licensure is granted to all physicians who demonstrate academic competency during training, regardless of their degree.
最近，研究生医学教育过程的简化标志着从骨病医生（DO）和美国医学博士（USMD）之间的传统二分法向一个重要转变，但这种新的统一性并没有延续到许可过程中，包括 DO、MD 和外国医学毕业生（FMG）的州医疗许可验证（VOT）表格。仍存在广泛的差异。
记录与 USMD 相比，主任必须向州医疗许可委员会披露的 DO 和 FMG 的绩效指标计划的差异。
从所有美国州、华盛顿特区和美国领土的所有骨病和全科学位许可委员会收集 VOT 表格。然后，作者仅在 VOT 表格因 DO、USMD 和 FMG 而异的州审查仅与学员表现有关的 VOT 表格。许可委员会的问题被归类为与纪律处分、文件归档、居民行动和计划中的非纪律处分有关。
研究包括 56 个州和地区（50 个美国州；华盛顿特区；和 5 个美国领土）。大多数州和地区（46 个；82.1%）对 DO 和 USMD 使用相同的 VOT 表格。除纽约外，所有州和地区（55 个；98.2%）对 FMG 和 USMD 使用相同的表格。在有骨病委员会的 14 个州中，内华达州仅对 DO 使用联邦凭证验证服务（FCVS），8 个州使用独特的骨病 VOT 表格。在这 8 个骨病委员会中，有 3 个 VOT 表格在培训期间没有询问任何关于居民表现的问题。在其余的 5 个表格中，都询问了纪律处分。10 个州和 1 个地区（美属维尔京群岛）要求 FCVS 同时适用于 USMD 和 FMG，但不适用于 DO，而纽约仅要求 FCVS 适用于 FMG。内华达州仅要求 FCVS 适用于 DO。
尽管各州内 FMG 和 USMD 的 VOT 要求大多相同，但骨病与全科学位许可委员会之间的绩效指标问题集在各州内和各州内差异很大。为所有申请者实施标准化的 VOT 表格，其中包括学术表现指标，可能有助于确保在培训期间表现出学术能力的所有医生都获得医疗执照，无论他们的学位如何。
