0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Viewpoint |

Time to Eliminate the Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination for US Medical Graduates

Lydia A. Flier, MD1,2; Christopher R. Henderson, MD, MPhil1,3; Carolyn L. Treasure, MD1,4
[+] Author Affiliations
1Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
2Now at Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
3Now at Department of Medicine, Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina
4Now at Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9):1245-1246. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.3753.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

This Invited Commentary examines arguments in favor of discontinuing the Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination.

The public charges physicians with a fundamental trust: preventing and treating disease. This duty requires the highest standards of knowledge, behavior, and skill. For this reason, testing has an essential role in the medical licensure process. But just as physicians are trained to be deliberate, evidence-based, and cost-conscious, certification processes should be held accountable to the same high standards. In our view, the required Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) examination, which purports to evaluate clinical and communication skills, fails to meet these standards. Herein, we argue that the Step 2 CS examination should be discontinued as a part of the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) series for graduates of US medical schools. As of June 13, 2016, 16 000 medical students and physicians had signed an online petition that we organized to demonstrate the widespread support for this position.1 As a profession, we must ensure excellence in clinical skills and communication among physicians—and the Step 2 CS examination is the wrong way to achieve this goal.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
Concern about factual misstatements on Step 2 CS proposal
Posted on July 18, 2016
David A. Johnson, MA
Federation of State Medical Boards
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
I am concerned about the factual misstatements and proposal presented here:

1) Step 2 CS is part of the medical licensing examination, not a “certification process.” Certification assures expertise in a specific content area. USMLE assures minimal competence to practice general, undifferentiated medicine.

2) The authors describe the CSA as an assessment of “English-language proficiency.” Incorrect; it was an assessment of clinical and communication skills.

3) The authors posit that attendance at an LCME-accredited school ensures baseline standards of clinical proficiency expected by residency programs. The USMLE, as a licensing examination, is designed to assure competence to practice medicine independently, after residency. It is not intended to ensure proficiency for residency, where physicians enter supervised practice.

4) The authors cite the Alvin article as supporting the argument that Step 2 CS has not had an impact on medical education. That article does not make that claim or provide the data the authors note. Furthermore, there is published data on the impact the exam had on education in a relatively short period of time.

5) The authors say medical schools “should be entrusted with the job they are licensed to undertake.” Medical schools are not licensed; they are accredited. They exist under the charter issued to the college/university. Furthermore, they issue diplomas, not licenses. The only entities with statutory authority to issue a medical license and to assess competence for licensure are state medical boards. Medical schools certainly prepare students for practice. But there is inevitably variation across schools in terms of the readiness of their graduates to begin patient care. One measure of such variation is Step 2 CS itself, where average pass rates by school range from mid-80% to 100%.

In short, schools are not the arbiter of physicians’ fitness to practice. State medical boards are. In the interest of public protection, they require independent assessment of all physicians prior to issuing a license. The authors gloss over the implications of their proposal. Plainly put, in their view international graduates should demonstrate their clinical skills proficiency through a standardized, nationally-administered examination, while US students take a non-standardized examination administered by their medical school, not an independent assessor. This would not only dismantle the common standard physicians must currently meet for licensure, it smacks of a ‘separate but equal’ mentality that has no place in today’s America.

The medical licensing community supports assessment of physicians’ clinical skills, as evidenced by multiple actions taken by the FSMB’s House of Delegates and the following statements about Step 2 CS –

“I wouldn’t feel comfortable giving a license without this exam.” (Former Louisiana board president, after more than a decade on that board)

“The need for physicians who can really communicate with patients is important; the clinical skills exam really addresses that…there isn’t standardization across medical schools for that type of measurement. The more you have those skills reinforced at the exam level and at the schools, the better it is for patients.” (Oregon board executive)
Step 2 CS and the Testing-Assessment Bureaucracy
Posted on September 7, 2016
Marc S. Frager MD
East Coast Medical Associates
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
David Johnson is writing for the Federation of State Medical Boards which administers the Step 2 CS and collects revenue generated from this exam. Now is the time for the FSMB and David Johnson to clearly demonstrate the value of this exam to society, and not the FSMB. The actual data to demonstrate value certainly does not exist. We need more than just testimony and speculation, as offered by Mr. Johnson to continue this travesty. .

Perhaps it is time to reconsider the value of the entire testing-assessment business to society including ABMS and the hotly contested Maintenance of Certification process. The continued absence of any demonstrated efficacy, combined with the high prices, makes these procedures worthy of discontinuation.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

8,537 Views
0 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();