- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 9
They should pass everyone. They messed up
General Cardiology Boards 2023
- Thread starter Egghead34
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,356
- Reaction score
- 2,333
Rheumatology board results came out today, and we took it 10/18.
These are their revenues to pay the company, CEO, and lobbying expenses. They have to fail at least 10-15% of test takers yearly, so they can make a profit in the next few years. If they use a certain cutoff, everyone would pass and ABIM would fail business-wise.
Richard J. Baron, MD, MACP is the president and CEO of ABIM ($1,031,924, 32 hrs./wk.)
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 9
There is the problem, it's business rather being a service. Fail people and ruin them, at least for a while, to make money.
It should have never been required and made mandatory. Should have always been an optional certification to "show off" as an achievement but not required.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 14
Do they ever release results on Wednesdays, Thursdays, or Fridays or should we plan on waiting at least another week?
I remember my medicine boards were released on a Friday not sure about specialty exams
I had a chance to talk to them just now. I was kind of pushy and persistent and emphasized the point that given the day 2 debacle they should be more clear with steps of correction and mentioned the multiple other ABIM specialties that have received their scores. They told me to look out for them today!
Anyone else have an *unreasonable* bodily response to the suggestion they might actually come out today? Adrenaline can really cause the shakes. I have a case shortly and need to go meditate this off or my access might not be that smooth....
Hope you're right and they didn't just say that to get you off the phone lol
Well, 303K, I respect that you called. I didn't try calling, I've just been lighting up their inbox with detailed literature reviews addressing the inaccuracies of their current testing methods and getting repeated "this email has been flagged for review" responses.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 5
I'll be honest I'm just joking. Everyone needs to relax, regardless of the results you'll all be fine. If you fail it's a small bump in the journey. If you pass then literally no one cares. With everything going on in the world let's step back and appreciate the gifts we have.
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 9
🫨🫨💩
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 5
I can’t tell whether this is a joke or the first post…
It was malicious
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
It’s ridiculous that we have to wait this long while they clear their mess ups .
Regardless of pass or fail, please take your time to email them about Day 2. We should not let them get away with this obvious error (let alone internal errors, who knows what). They will do it again to our colleagues in the future. There is no transparency in this organization.
💯
Might be helpful to create a concise yet effective template for us to send. Anyone have something they already sent?
Here you go
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 9
I like this
It's good but there needs to be some sentences about day 2 in general (i.e. not just that they messed up this year) and how it doesn't even follow proper guidelines in terms of coding and no one knows how to properly code for it (not even Mayo faculty who are industry leaders in this board exam). It's become more of a test to see if you can code properly rather than testing general knowledge and image quality is very poor. 3 second blurry clips of one view is not how cardiology is practiced whether it's echo or cath. It would routinely lead to improper diagnosis in the real world let alone a standardized test. Theyre too open to interpretation and theres a lot of interoperator variability in terms of how these studies are read and so they end up being more guess what I am thinking type of questions. There's a reason why there are different objective ways to measure LVEF on echo instead of just eye balling it and why IVUS and OCT exist--its to reduce interoperator variability. These fools are testing us on how cardiology should NOT be practiced. Get rid of day 2 all together.
Last edited:
Could not agree more. We MUST get rid of the day 2 exam. Whether you pass or fail, please, please, please do not just move on and let it become an "individual issue". Think about it this way, our colleagues/friends/husband/wife/brother/sister will have to go through this voodoo exam in the future. How irony! No one, except ABIM, knows how to code this exam properly.
PalestineCMR
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2023
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
That's because their exam was on Thursday and Friday. This year's results will come out this Tuesday 12/5 or the Tuesday after 12/12 (technically up to 12 Tuesdays post exam which would be 1/2/2024)
They took it Thursday and Friday 10/27 and 10/28, and five Fridays from day 2 was December 2nd, so they got the result. We are already 7 Tuesdays out, and next one, December 5th, is the 8th! I guess our worst case will be up to Tuesday January 2nd which will be 12 weeks, or if policy 3 months (not 12 weeks) then will be January 10th!
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 5
Yea exactly - we need them to tell us exactly when these scores are coming out. Otherwise, it is just painful…
Could cut and paste something like this, edited to your liking
**************************************************
To the ABIM Cardiovascular Approval Committee,
I am writing to urge the committee to
1.) Be transparent about scoring methods utilized to correct for the errors in the 2023 Cardiovascular Certification exam, addressing methods used to:
2.) Provide clarity on Day 2 coding metrics and assessment, and consider eliminating this day altogether. As the coding methods currently stand, the assessment does not encourage up-to-date clinical practice and how to code the images is shrouded in mystery, leaving test-takers to guess based on word-of-mouth from prior test-takers. Do you code a vessel that isn’t engaged but collaterals from an adjacent vessel visualize partly? That would seem reckless because you can’t speak to the proximal aspects. Do you code a native vessel that you can visualize because of competitive flow from an engaged graft but is never engaged itself? Do you code a native vessel as stenotic when a distal stent is significantly diseased, or just the stent alone? If tight left main appears 70-80% diseased, do you consider it “wrong” if someone codes moderate when the clinical outcome (a left main coronary artery of more than 50%) is the same (how is this assessing for clinical competency?). Chamber quantification is not assessed per current ASE guidelines, and it is unclear whether to code an atria, for example, as “enlarged” when there is no provided quantification data. Same goes for ejection fraction, and other measurements with notorious interobserver variability. Guessing based on a limited 2D object of a 3D image with limited views is not standard practice. The same goes for cath. The stenosis values are not in alignment with current guideline standards, and those same guidelines speak to the inability to trust visual 2D assessment of a 3D object by utilizing FFR, IVUS, OCT, and other adjunctive therapies to determine lesion severity.
In summary, Day 2 is incredibly flawed, and this is in alignment with it being the reason most people fail. The issue is faulty testing that relies on best guess rather than true assessment of clinical knowledge.
This is an exam with profound career implications, affecting the financial well-being and livelihoods of your colleagues. Please do your colleagues the courtesy of taking steps to fix this flawed system.
**************************************************
To the ABIM Cardiovascular Approval Committee,
I am writing to urge the committee to
1.) Be transparent about scoring methods utilized to correct for the errors in the 2023 Cardiovascular Certification exam, addressing methods used to:
- compensate for the time lost for test-takers puzzling over questions which were ultimately unanswerable, thus impacting other questions during a section with a mere 30 questions
- address the disparity of available “fair questions” remaining. It is intrinsically not fair to have one group with more opportunities to get right or wrong “more” questions and another group with fewer scored questions entirely.
2.) Provide clarity on Day 2 coding metrics and assessment, and consider eliminating this day altogether. As the coding methods currently stand, the assessment does not encourage up-to-date clinical practice and how to code the images is shrouded in mystery, leaving test-takers to guess based on word-of-mouth from prior test-takers. Do you code a vessel that isn’t engaged but collaterals from an adjacent vessel visualize partly? That would seem reckless because you can’t speak to the proximal aspects. Do you code a native vessel that you can visualize because of competitive flow from an engaged graft but is never engaged itself? Do you code a native vessel as stenotic when a distal stent is significantly diseased, or just the stent alone? If tight left main appears 70-80% diseased, do you consider it “wrong” if someone codes moderate when the clinical outcome (a left main coronary artery of more than 50%) is the same (how is this assessing for clinical competency?). Chamber quantification is not assessed per current ASE guidelines, and it is unclear whether to code an atria, for example, as “enlarged” when there is no provided quantification data. Same goes for ejection fraction, and other measurements with notorious interobserver variability. Guessing based on a limited 2D object of a 3D image with limited views is not standard practice. The same goes for cath. The stenosis values are not in alignment with current guideline standards, and those same guidelines speak to the inability to trust visual 2D assessment of a 3D object by utilizing FFR, IVUS, OCT, and other adjunctive therapies to determine lesion severity.
In summary, Day 2 is incredibly flawed, and this is in alignment with it being the reason most people fail. The issue is faulty testing that relies on best guess rather than true assessment of clinical knowledge.
This is an exam with profound career implications, affecting the financial well-being and livelihoods of your colleagues. Please do your colleagues the courtesy of taking steps to fix this flawed system.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 9
Sent just now. Thank you!!
sent just now with more frustration
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 14
Anyone again tried to ask about when we could expect to hear back? I know it is probably unlikely the people the phone would know anything, but I am just curious.
Another week..let's start it up again
Did they offer any of the test takers who had the uncodeable images a re-do for day 2?
Keep sending emails to ABIM about throwing out day 2 and making necessary changes for future test takers. The way day 2 is set up currently is unacceptable.
They clearly have the scores ready but they're doing their due diligence before releasing them.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 14
I did not. Only that the testing center could send a formal complaint on behalf of the test takers.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 14
Looks like the people taking the 10-year MOC Cardiology exam got their results. Hopefully we will soon.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 9
When was their exam?
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 14
October 11th it looks like
All, keep sending emails to ABIM about throwing out day 2.
At least, they have to provide a matrix on how to grade this exam, or they have to remove pass/fail from Day 2 this year and so on.
Extremely unfair exam and money scam. Otherwise, ABIM needs to go.
At least, they have to provide a matrix on how to grade this exam, or they have to remove pass/fail from Day 2 this year and so on.
Extremely unfair exam and money scam. Otherwise, ABIM needs to go.
anoncardioguy
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 14
Another irritating thing…you are supposed to be able to register for IC boards from 12-1-23 but we haven’t gotten our board scores back for general and therefore can’t register for IC….
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 9
Just spoke with ABIM (they were very kind on the phone), no one in their office has any ETA of scores. They sited the erroneous questions as the cause for the delay. WTF is this…..
They'll take the full 3 months and make no changes. They're just doing their due diligence (i.e. see how many failed day 2 and compare it to previous years to see what impact the uncodeable questions had on fail rates just to protect themselves). We need to keep sending them emails about day 2. This is the best chance that we will ever have to make a change regarding day 2. Please email them even anonymously if you need to.
agreed.
all please keep sending emails daily. dont let them get away with this obvious error. we don’t know how many errors they had in the past and there is no transparency on this money scam. ABIM needs to go.
vancopime23
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2023
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 5
Not a cardiologist, just a ID doc, but have been following along with great interest. I'm waiting for my exam results as well, and I also had issues with our exam. Poorly written questions with confusing clinical time-lines repeated multiple times within the same question stem, questions that clearly refer to random publications that have no clinical application, and questions treating theory as fact (including in my own research field of expertise!). Oh, and entire major areas of practice completely ignored.
I also adamantly feel ABIM is a scam. The "members" are full-time physicians, which as we all know, have little valuable free-time. Thus there is no way that they can ensure adequate question quality and proofing. It was the first time leaving an exam where I was angry at the poor quality of questions. For ~$2k an exam, it was ridiculous and unacceptable.
Since us ID docs are all pushovers, I hope you guys can lead the charge to reform ABIM.
I also adamantly feel ABIM is a scam. The "members" are full-time physicians, which as we all know, have little valuable free-time. Thus there is no way that they can ensure adequate question quality and proofing. It was the first time leaving an exam where I was angry at the poor quality of questions. For ~$2k an exam, it was ridiculous and unacceptable.
Since us ID docs are all pushovers, I hope you guys can lead the charge to reform ABIM.
vancopime23
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2023
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 5
I heard ABIM stopped engaging on Twitter after they were called out publicly for promoting their MOC as "so simple you can even do it on vacation" with a picture of a physician in front of a computer on vacation....
No they are still re-tweeting peoples posts about passing the boards. Again, there is nobody reading the emails being sent to them. If you want to get their attention tag them on twitter. They may not respond but they are seeing it.
