FA 2014 vs 2015

[Yui]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi guys,

I know other threads like this exist, but I wanted to get your opinions anyway. It's still a bit far off, but I'm planning on taking step 1 in early February of 2015. The new First Aid comes out Dec. 22 of 2014. Do you guys think it's worth it to wait for the new FA to come out before annotating and studying from it? Or do you think the 2014 version will be good enough? I know there was a huge difference between the 2013 and 2014 FA, which is why I'm nervous that if I use the 2014 version, the 2015 will then have a lot of changes and I'd have to start over again. I know they are making some changes to step 1 during this time, so I was wondering if FA 2015 will have substantial new information. The only problem is if I wait for FA 2015, I won't be able to start studying in a couple of months, I'd have to wait till december. If I got the FA 2014 I can start skimming stuff now and start to really study in the fall. What do you think?

 

[Psai]

Stick with 2014

 

[urbanclassic]

Use and annotate FA 2014. I personally would still buy 2015 (or get a boot leg) to see what new things they've added.

 

[Freddie Mercury]

I used 2013, then bought 2014 when it came out. I don't annotate (besides marking the errata when they are released) so didn't lose anything

 

[aspiringmd1015]

people keep saying again and again that the exam is changing? does anyone have any valid proof?

 

[Ismet]

people keep saying again and again that the exam is changing? does anyone have any valid proof?

This vague explanation of changes: http://www.usmle.org/pdfs/Changes_to_USMLE_2014-2015_handout_FINAL.pdf

I think the test has gradually been changing. Less buzzwords, more WTF questions and convoluted vignettes. I had like 5 questions that asked you to analyze an experiment, but in a really weird way that left me staring at the screen mouthing "WTF." I had never seen any questions like that in any practice (UW/Rx/NBME). Also had a couple questions that seemed to be related to this "safety science" thing, which also took me off guard.

 

[IH8ColdWeath3r]

you're joking, right?

 

[aspiringmd1015]

i see, thanks, so where would i study this safety science and quality improvement stuff from?

 

[Transposony]

i see, thanks, so where would i study this safety science and quality improvement stuff from?

http://www.who.int/patientsafety/education/curriculum/PSP_mpc_topic-07.pdf

http://www.ihi.org/education/webtraining/Pages/default.aspx

 

[aspiringmd1015]

thanks, looks like a load of bs

 

[Phloston]

I'm currently an editor for FA15 and was a contributing author for FA14. My advice is to just buy the current edition and use that. We definitely make necessary changes every year, but that's not a reason to hold off. I would advise against illegally obtaining a bootleg version, as one of the above posters has mentioned.

 

[Transposony]

thanks, looks like a load of bs

This is what I understand:

Safety science = Decreasing mortality and morbidity.

Quality improvement = Decreasing morbidity and saving money.

44,000- 98,000 people die in hospitals each year as the result of medical errors.

Nearly 100,000 deaths from health care-associated infections.

Estimated 30,000 to 62,000 deaths from Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection

Cost of health care-associated infections is $28-33 billion

Number of deaths from leading causes of death:

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

 

[Hawked]

you're joking, right?

No I can concur. Some of the questions were over things that aren't in textbooks, only research journals. You are supposed to be reading JAMA and stuff while you are in medschool, but it's lower yield. Some of them you can still get if you have a strong foundation and just think of it from a theoretical stand point. Plus there are like 20 Step 2 questions on Step 1. Most of the time you can get them (i.e. Someone presents with diarrhea. Start them on fluids) others you would have to do rotations to know. Which probably explains why the scores are higher in the beginning of the year. Schools like Columbia School of Physicians and Surgeons do 1.5 years of book work then 1 year of clinical rotations before taking Step 1 in February.

 

[DermViser]

No I can concur. Some of the questions were over things that aren't in textbooks, only research journals. You are supposed to be reading JAMA and stuff while you are in medschool, but it's lower yield. Some of them you can still get if you have a strong foundation and just think of it from a theoretical stand point. Plus there are like 20 Step 2 questions on Step 1. Most of the time you can get them (i.e. Someone presents with diarrhea. Start them on fluids) others you would have to do rotations to know. Which probably explains why the scores are higher in the beginning of the year. Schools like Columbia School of Physicians and Surgeons do 1.5 years of book work then 1 year of clinical rotations before taking Step 1 in February.

That's bc the USMLE has transitioned from an exam in which there is this arbitrary separation between basic sciences and clinical sciences to where it's more interwoven. It's also transitioned beyond the isolated subject disciplines (i.e. a Biochem question, a Physiology question, etc.) The biggest complaint by the NBME people was that medical students did a memory dump of basic science information after entering clinical rotations. The NBME people's point is that you need to be able to apply basic science principles to clinical problems. Hence it's not surprising that those who take the exam after finishing clinicals have some level of edge as you get used to things presented as clinical vignettes.

 

[Hawked]

That's bc the USMLE has transitioned from an exam in which there is this arbitrary separation between basic sciences and clinical sciences to where it's more interwoven. It's also transitioned beyond the isolated subject disciplines (i.e. a Biochem question, a Physiology question, etc.) The biggest complaint by the NBME people was that medical students did a memory dump of basic science information after entering clinical rotations. The NBME people's point is that you need to be able to apply basic science principles to clinical problems. Hence it's not surprising that those who take the exam after finishing clinicals have some level of edge as you get used to things presented as clinical vignettes.

Thanks for smoothing that out for me.

Also cool port-wine stain

 

[Ismet]

The NBME people's point is that you need to be able to apply basic science principles to clinical problems.

And that makes more sense as to what they should be testing. The test prep materials just need to catch up to the changes the NBME is making. The actual test forms seem all over the place, as people either get exams that mimic UWorld or NBME self assessments, or they get test forms like mine that seem completely out of the blue and more like Step 2/shelf type stuff, or completely random specific research type stuff that was never discussed in any prep I did.
I get that there will always be the WTF questions, but there was a LOT of WTF on my test.

 

[DermViser]

And that makes more sense as to what they should be testing. The test prep materials just need to catch up to the changes the NBME is making. The actual test forms seem all over the place, as people either get exams that mimic UWorld or NBME self assessments, or they get test forms like mine that seem completely out of the blue and more like Step 2/shelf type stuff, or completely random specific research type stuff that was never discussed in any prep I did.

My guess is they haven't revised the entire question bank at once. With changes randomly incorporated like reading evidence based literature and safety science (reminds me of Safety Dance).