- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 1,352
I'm curious. Do you think it's clinically relevant to be able to identify non-cancerous tumors in a bone? By name? Isn't that what the radiologist is supposed to do? Certainly it's important to be able to identify if a bone tumor is invasive, etc, but clinically speaking, a benign bone tumor of any kind in the calcaneus will be treated the same way, no? Especially if symptomatic, right?
This is precisely the problem I have with this. After 20 years in practice, how does it show my "clinical competency" that it is a unicameral bone cyst vs. an adipose tumor? Especially with the horrible resolution of the pics included in the "test"? Show me a nice multilobulated tumor if you want me to see it. Not some blurry image, that could or could not be more than one lobule with a very distinct looking focal area, that is precisely what a unicameral bone cyst looks like. You know how many of those I've seen in 20 years. TWO.
Does anyone else have a problem with this being done every quarter? I mean, I have a good 15-20 years left of practice. I have to do four of these a year for the next 15 years???? Seriously???
Clinically relevant questions
Which of the following complications are associated with implant arthroplasty?
1. Joint stiffness
2. One star Google review
3. Disparaging remarks from a colleague on the Hallux Rigidus Science and Support Facebook group
4. All of the above
You're totally right about the bone tumors but I prefer the new format rather than waiting for 8-10 years to do the all-or-nothing exam. For my recertification test I had to drive three hours over a mountain pass to a testing center in some random office building. What a way to burn up a day. With this new format I can spend 20 minutes four times per year while dressed in just my monkey pants if I want to. Plus, the minimum score requirement is really low (p-value 0.1) so it's pretty much a no-pressure test.