- Joined
- Nov 26, 2007
- Messages
- 383
- Reaction score
- 100
Log into ABO website to find out if you have passed.
Good luck!
P.S. I am very happy this morning 🙂
Good luck!
P.S. I am very happy this morning 🙂
June 2010 Oral Board results are out!
- Thread starter Eyefixer
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 1,235
- Reaction score
- 37
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,196
- Reaction score
- 286
Congratulations. Welcome to the Maintenance of Certification program!
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2007
- Messages
- 383
- Reaction score
- 100
Yes, it looks the first MOC deadline has already been set...
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 773
- Reaction score
- 343
Congrats to all that passed.
How did you prepare for the written boards?
The oral boards?
Taking them written boards next year, hope I do as well as you all.
How did you prepare for the written boards?
The oral boards?
Taking them written boards next year, hope I do as well as you all.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 8
Ugh! I think I failed the orals! I'm not sure how because I "thought" I knew most of the cases, and I did get through all of the cases with time to spare.
I don't see MOC certification deadlines on the ABO status page. I'm just praying that my status page hasn't been updated yet! (<-- anyone who is certified have this happen to them?)
I wish there was some type of feedback on why a person fails this test. It just seems like I would be doomed to make the same mistakes again! This is getting kind of expensive...🙁
I don't see MOC certification deadlines on the ABO status page. I'm just praying that my status page hasn't been updated yet! (<-- anyone who is certified have this happen to them?)
I wish there was some type of feedback on why a person fails this test. It just seems like I would be doomed to make the same mistakes again! This is getting kind of expensive...🙁
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 1,235
- Reaction score
- 37
Sorry to say, but if it's this late in the day (your post shows 10:56 pm) and your page is still not showing that you're certified, you have most likely failed (an error is unlikely, but worth calling about). There was an issue much earlier in the day, when they were in the process of updating. Everyone's page had the appearance that they had failed. That was the most stressful 40 minutes I've had in a while!
As you have stated, you receive no additional feedback. If you call, they can give you an idea of how close you were to passing, as well as any weak areas you should focus on for the next test. The fail rate is now ~25%, so you're in good company. There have been former Chief Residents at top institutions that have failed the first time.
It's just a weird test--one that is unlike any you've taken in your academic career. Now that you've been through it, you know what to expect. You'll likely do fine next time. I recommend adopting a specific outline approach to each question:
1) Look at the picture and vignette and develop a rough ddx.
2) State that you would obtain a complete history, with particular attention to a, b, c, etc. (based on your ddx).
3) State that you would perform a complete exam of BOTH eyes, with particular attention to a, b, c, etc. (based on your refined ddx).
4) State that you would order the following tests (based on your further refined ddx).
5) Finally, discuss the management of your chosen diagnosis.
You may be prompted by the examiner along the way, but always keep this outline in mind. That way, you're less likely to get side-tracked and then pigeon-holed into the wrong diagnosis. A great review in this regard is Ophthalmology Review: A Case Study Approach by Singh, Smiddy, & Lee. It covers the usual suspects, which is most of what you'll see on orals. The zebras are there, but will be few and far between.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 1,235
- Reaction score
- 37
See my previous post re: oral boards. As for the WQE, I prepared pretty much like I had for OKAPs. Chern is a nice quick & dirty review. I supplemented with the Wills color atlas series, as it has great pictures. I went with the MEEI question book, as it's more difficult than most. Honestly, the WQE felt a lot like the OKAP to me. I performed about the same as I had on the OKAPs, as well.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2007
- Messages
- 383
- Reaction score
- 100
Good advice above.
DDx is key. I also followed the format of obtaining a complete history paying attention to a,b,c etc. However, I noticed that most examiners just rolled their eyes when I was going through that. It was almost like "just get the part where I can give you a check mark". If I had to do it again, I would do it the same way though. Better safe then sorry.
Ophthalmology Review: A Case Study Approach by Singh, Smiddy, & Lee.- this book is gold for orals. I went through it twice. I also used Wills, Spalton atlas (great for pictures), looked at Last Minute optics the night before (just the instrument sections). I ALMOST signed up for Osler course; now I realize this test is totally doable without dropping $5K and taking a week off of work.
Overall, the test is fair. Not too many zebras, but there is definitely some stuff I had to think about. Know your clinical optics, refractive error management, systemic conditions with eye manifestations that can kill the patient, know basic surgical management for even for subspecialities. As stated before pediatric luekocoria is a must. Don't waste your time looking at path slides or optics formulas.
Finally, look at this thread. It was valuable for me:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=287204
Good luck.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 1,235
- Reaction score
- 37
Something else I found useful:
Since you'll get absolutely stone-faced by the examiners, which can make most of us uneasy, I tended to just look down at the book while talking. Sure, it's a little antisocial, but you aren't there to have a friendly conversation. I essentially imagined I was talking the cases out to myself. On the occasions I was prompted by the examiner, I would change course as needed. Like I said, it's a really weird test.
Since you'll get absolutely stone-faced by the examiners, which can make most of us uneasy, I tended to just look down at the book while talking. Sure, it's a little antisocial, but you aren't there to have a friendly conversation. I essentially imagined I was talking the cases out to myself. On the occasions I was prompted by the examiner, I would change course as needed. Like I said, it's a really weird test.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 8
Thanks for the advice. It really was disheartening to learn that I failed because I really don't consider myself a "danger to society" or their eyeballs. Plus, I thought I studied enough for it. I called the ABO and they gave me some feedback on what areas I was weak on. But overall, pretty vague feedback. I too was surprised that the failure rate was around 24%. That seems pretty high given that this represents people who have passed the ("harder") written exam. Maybe I should do a chief residency now... 🙂
I think I know part of the problem during my oral exam. I believe I began it well by saying "well, the differential diagnosis for this photo would be <blah>, <blah>, and <blah>"...and then going on to physical findings, treatment, etc. However, I also thought the examiners seemed bored by my answers....and instead seemed to be just waiting for the buzzwords...so I started just saying "this is most likely <specific disease> and this is how you manage it" (ie. I stopped detailing the differential diagnosis). Probably a fatal mistake because that probably pigeon-holed me toward wrong diagnoses.
Anyways, I'm definitely taking the Osler course this time around (more $$$, hooray!) and focusing on the big picture for cases... and rehearsing more in front of someone else.
Visionary (and others), did you always start out your response with this template in this order?:
"I see a slit lamp photo of <blah blah>. The differential diagnosis of this finding is <x>, <y>, <z>. To figure out which of these it is, I would look for <p>,<q>,<r> on exam. From these findings, the most likely diagnosis is <x>. To work this up, I would obtain <a test> <b test> <c test>. I would then treat with..."
I tried to do this, but they kept interrupting me with results of tests ("turn to page <x>"), which I felt pigeon-holed me toward diagnoses (and also made me feel like I was doing ok).
Also besides "Last Minute Optics", what other resources are good for practical (oral boards-type) optics scenarios?
I wish this oral board exam (and its grading policy) was more demystified!
Thanks everyone.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 1,235
- Reaction score
- 37
Don't take it personally. If you passed the WQE, you have the knowledge base. I'll say it again: this is just a weird test! Nowhere in our training are we tested this way. Heck, the vast majority up to orals was multiple choice! Furthermore, the stone-faced examiners can make even the most confident feel uncomfortable. As I said, there are plenty of strong candidates who have stumbled on the orals.
As for your experience, the examiners probably were bored. I'm a teacher at heart, and I can't imagine sitting across from someone listening to them drone on and on about a topic without being able to have an interactive discussion. Talk about blah.
I've heard good things about Osler. The mock orals are supposedly better than the review.
Yes, I did always try and follow that outline. And, like I mentioned before, I didn't really look at the examiners to see if they were bored. They're trained not to react to you positively or negatively, so why pay attention to them? Yes, they will interrupt. That is to move you along. Always keep a differential in mind, though. Just refine it as you get more information. Some questions have a more narrow differential, and you may get to the answer more rapidly. Always work through the whole question though. The outline approach doesn't apply as well to some of the optics questions, but use it when you can.
Last Minute Optics is still probably the best, though it's overkill. Most of the optics questions involve practical applications related to problems with refractive error. Focus (no pun) on those sections of the book. You won't see any freaky concave mirror garbage. I didn't even have to do any calculations.
I agree that the process is way too mysterious. I felt like I was testing into some dark fraternity. I was waiting for them to trot out the sheep. 😉
Keep your chin up! It's not the end of the world. 👍
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
If you are going to do Osler, you will get plenty of practical stuff there, especially with optics. As Visionary mentioned, do not waste time on formulas or problems. That's written stuff. Osler was good. I did the full review but if you think you will have some time to study beforehand, save the review money and just go for the mock orals. These were really good and really get you in the frame of mind of how to answer. They also show how other people sound and thus how you do or don't want to sound.
Part of the orals in my opinion is a complete crapshoot based on what kind of examiners you get. I know some people who got grilled on peripheral, minimally related questions, while my examiners were really straightforward. The more they move you through, usually the better. I agree with looking down and motoring through. Looking up can be a sign of uncertainty as you look for visual clues from the examiner's reaction. Some of these guys should go to Vegas afterward to challenge Johnny Chan because they are good at staying stonefaced. Trust your knowledge, form your dx/ddx, and press on. You will sound more confident the easier info flows out of your mouth, and like it or not, first impressions of confidence can influence someone if you are borderline.
Part of the orals in my opinion is a complete crapshoot based on what kind of examiners you get. I know some people who got grilled on peripheral, minimally related questions, while my examiners were really straightforward. The more they move you through, usually the better. I agree with looking down and motoring through. Looking up can be a sign of uncertainty as you look for visual clues from the examiner's reaction. Some of these guys should go to Vegas afterward to challenge Johnny Chan because they are good at staying stonefaced. Trust your knowledge, form your dx/ddx, and press on. You will sound more confident the easier info flows out of your mouth, and like it or not, first impressions of confidence can influence someone if you are borderline.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 8
The November 2010 Oral Board results are out, and thankfully, I passed it this time around!
Some comments:
- I would say that ~70% of candidates for the oral boards take some form of the Osler course. There are approximately 250 candidates taking the oral boards per test date. I took the full course just to be on the safe side. There were ~50 people taking the full course. And then probably another 125 who came for the mock oral sessions. No, the Osler course is not necessary to pass. But then again, more than half of the candidates are probably taking it. I didn't take it the first time around to save a few bucks, and well, I wish I did!
-I felt that the Osler course helped A LOT (no, I am not affiliated with the Osler course!!). I think it gets you in the right mental frame of mind to start spewing your knowledge in a coherent fashion. It was actually pretty amazing to see how people transformed from stuttering-fearful novices to Bill Clinton-like speakers in a matter of a few days. The Optics lectures/mock orals especially were extremely high-yield. Basically, just telling you what is (most likely) on the oral test. I think the course also just instills the fear of god into you, so that you take this test very seriously. Also, it was just nice having a few days away from work to concentrate on this test.
Anyways, I hope my protracted path toward ABO certification helps someone else who may have failed the orals the first time around.
Don't underestimate this test like I did -- and again, I highly recommend the Osler course!
P.S. This whole certification process is one big racket!
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Messages
- 384
- Reaction score
- 30
I have to agree the Osler course was great, especially for the optics. As one who always left optics to the last minute for OKAPS (and again for boards unfortunately) it was a lifesaver for me, it cuts out the BS and focuses on the very high yield stuff.
The one subject I thought was weak for the course was the main Peds guy, he was SOOO slow. In the sessions I was in on several of the people had only ONE case for their mock oral and he just nitpicked over stupid details, and random tangents, including a 30 minute drag about how to do the 3 step test. If you don't know the 3 step test by the time you are doing oral boards, well.. . whatever, but the mock orals is not the place to be giving a lecture about it. He also didn't seem to be focusing on high yield topics, more a presentation a la "here's some interesting cases I've seen over the years including some random crap that you will never ever ever see on the oral boards yet here I am giving it to you for your mock oral." Of the 4 cases I got through on my mock with him, 2 were legitimate topics and one was frigging Alkaptonuria, and the other was amniotic band syndrome..... EFFING amniotic band syndrome!! Not going to get asked about that sir.
On the other hand most of the people tried to keep it at a pace to simulate the boards and kept it moving very nicely. The retina and neuro opth were really good.
Overall the course was worth the money and I can think of multiple questions I got on boards that I would have probably done poorly on had I not taken it.
