Board Certification

[planex]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Is Board Certification the next logical step to improve the profession?

Or would continued competency be a more relevant goal to pursue in the short term?

 

[cpw]

Is Board Certification the next logical step to improve the profession?

Or would continued competency be a more relevant goal to pursue in the short term?

I think getting every state to the same scope of practice is infinitely more important than board certification. Patients don't know the difference and i"m really not sure it would make that much difference to insurance panels.

 

[planex]

I think getting every state to the same scope of practice is infinitely more important than board certification. Patients don't know the difference and i"m really not sure it would make that much difference to insurance panels.

I agree that same scope of practice for all states is an important goal. But wouldn't continued competency (and board certification to a lesser extent) lead the way in making that happen easier and quicker?
By making it easier to support and argue law changes in scope of practice with the ability to demonstrate continued competency at a national level of practice of optometry.
Does anyone see continued competency or board certification as being bad for optometry?

 

[Ben Chudner]

I agree that same scope of practice for all states is an important goal. But wouldn't continued competency (and board certification to a lesser extent) lead the way in making that happen easier and quicker?
By making it easier to support and argue law changes in scope of practice with the ability to demonstrate continued competency at a national level of practice of optometry.
Does anyone see continued competency or board certification as being bad for optometry?

I see it as a huge money maker for the AOA, or whatever board gets the right to administer the test without any evidence that it will make a difference for the profession.

 

[Eyedoc1999]

Board certification for us is just silly and simply a way to try to ingratiate ourselves to medicine. There is no real benefit to "board certifying" primary care doctors which is what we are. Board certification in the real world is a means of determining competency in some specialty...it means something to differentiate yourself from a general type of practice, unnecessary since we ALL have a general type of practice. It's meaningless for a mid-level primary care practitioner to have board certification unless you are the guys getting paid to give out the certification.

 

[Eyedoc1999]

I agree that same scope of practice for all states is an important goal. But wouldn't continued competency (and board certification to a lesser extent) lead the way in making that happen easier and quicker?

First of all, no. Second, to whom would we be demonstrating this? To legislators that have no concept of what that even means? Maybe to physicians in an effort to "put their minds at ease" about expanding our scope of practice (in effect taking patients out of their offices and making it harder to make that boat payment)? To patients that don't have the slightest clue what board certification means? To other ODs that know that we already are competent?

You have to sift through the minutia to get to the core. At it's core, its simply unnecessary and sets a bad precedent in suggesting that our knowledge base is questionable at graduation (despite already passing several rounds of NATIONAL BOARDS simply to be able to practice).

 

[planex]

It's meaningless for a mid-level primary care practitioner to have board certification unless you are the guys getting paid to give out the certification.

This excerpt about other midlevel practitioner groups seems to support a different viewpoint quite effectively.

Regulation of NPs, PAs, and CNMs has evolved considerably over the last decade. National professional organizations have been refining certification and education program requirements and establishing standards for proficient practice. During this period, many national associations have become effective at lobbying for legislation that accommodates the needs of the public and their members on both the State and national levels. Professional associations advocate for regulations that contribute to the professional standing of the group. Standards elevate a profession to a level of skill and competence which creates uniformity and engenders respect by both consumers and other professions.

 

[Eyedoc1999]

This excerpt about other midlevel practitioner groups seems to support a different viewpoint quite effectively.

Regulation of NPs, PAs, and CNMs has evolved considerably over the last decade. National professional organizations have been refining certification and education program requirements and establishing standards for proficient practice. During this period, many national associations have become effective at lobbying for legislation that accommodates the needs of the public and their members on both the State and national levels. Professional associations advocate for regulations that contribute to the professional standing of the group. Standards elevate a profession to a level of skill and competence which creates uniformity and engenders respect by both consumers and other professions.

Hmmmm...do you mean the consumers that are shocked that optometry is a 4 year degree? or do you mean the OMDs that spend tons of money to make sure that our therapeutic options are as limited as they can swing? or do you mean the primary care MDs that won't refer to anyone other than OMDs? or do you mean the insurance companies to whom our "board certification" will mean nothing?

Exactly from whom are you trying to engender respect?

The problem is that we already have testing in place on several levels to determine competency. If several rounds of tests at a national level is STILL not enough, it begs the question of our own ability to set a reasonable testing protocol. Do we then need MDs on board to assure "quality"? If so, will the tests be subjective or objective. This is a can of worms we don't need to open.

 

[IOD]

I do not have a problem with being so-called board certified. The problem I have (and I hope most people in our profession would agree with) is the board exams themselves. The current Part 1 is completely irrelvant to clinical practice. How does knowing that IgG passes thru the placenta going to improve our clinical skills? And as a friend of mine who is a family practice physician said, "I do not want any optometrist anywhere near the placenta!".

Also, if the NBEO really wanted to model themselves after the medical boards, students would not be permitted to go on to the 3rd year before having passed part 1. In addition, the medical profession does have physicians practicing under the term "board eligible" which allows them to practice without the title of being "Board Certified". Another model that optometry could follow from the medical profession.

The bottom line is that even if you graduate from an accredited program, you are left out if you do not complete boards. Which confirms the notion of how much the NBEO is a large profit organization. The NBEO pretty much tells the school that their degrees mean little without their consent. There seems to be something inherently wrong with this current arrangement.

(Just an opinion)