- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 28,059
- Reaction score
- 438
As I have said (elsewhere? can't exactly remember - twitter?), I have several problems with the way pathology MOC works
1) The ability for everyone receiving certification prior to 2006 to be grandfathered in. This is pathetic and is nothing more than a way to make sure it got approved without complaint. If MOC is truly important, it should be for everyone. The newer graduates are often the ones who least in need of proving their worth, because they were just certified in a modern time.
2) Flying to Tampa. What? Why? It's all on the computer. I understand the point of quality checks and security and all that, but if we aren't looking at glass slides anymore there is no point. There are professional test-taking centers. They are able to view slides there. It sucks to take a test next to a smoker typing out an essay, but it's better than spending $1000 flight + hotel for Tampa.
3) The recert exam is supposedly easy. OK, then why have it? If everyone passes it's just a hoop to jump through and it isn't legitimate. I am not suggesting it should be harder so that more people fail on purpose, but it suggests it isn't worthwhile.
4) Checking in every two years requires a fee plus logging your CME. This is unnecessary. Almost all pathologists have to track our CME for state licensure purposes anyway.
I get the point that there has to be a way to monitor ongoing pathologist practice and ensure quality and adherence to updated literature and practice norms. But why is every pathologist over the age of 45 (if not 40) exempt? This could be assessed by having peer or colleague evaluation every 5-10 years plus documentation that you are practicing in good stead and maintaining licensure. We don't need a test. The only reason for the test is public relations.
1) The ability for everyone receiving certification prior to 2006 to be grandfathered in. This is pathetic and is nothing more than a way to make sure it got approved without complaint. If MOC is truly important, it should be for everyone. The newer graduates are often the ones who least in need of proving their worth, because they were just certified in a modern time.
2) Flying to Tampa. What? Why? It's all on the computer. I understand the point of quality checks and security and all that, but if we aren't looking at glass slides anymore there is no point. There are professional test-taking centers. They are able to view slides there. It sucks to take a test next to a smoker typing out an essay, but it's better than spending $1000 flight + hotel for Tampa.
3) The recert exam is supposedly easy. OK, then why have it? If everyone passes it's just a hoop to jump through and it isn't legitimate. I am not suggesting it should be harder so that more people fail on purpose, but it suggests it isn't worthwhile.
4) Checking in every two years requires a fee plus logging your CME. This is unnecessary. Almost all pathologists have to track our CME for state licensure purposes anyway.
I get the point that there has to be a way to monitor ongoing pathologist practice and ensure quality and adherence to updated literature and practice norms. But why is every pathologist over the age of 45 (if not 40) exempt? This could be assessed by having peer or colleague evaluation every 5-10 years plus documentation that you are practicing in good stead and maintaining licensure. We don't need a test. The only reason for the test is public relations.
