Took the test 8 18 -- the last day offered of course. For what it's worth here is how I prepared:
MKSAP in Audio Format -- listened to all but Derm twice.
MSKAP 16 -- some reading but all of the questions -- second time through averaged 80%. Skipped Derm the second pass.
Board Basics for quick check review (ie Target Cells, Brugada Syndrome, etc..) Excellent resource for that, but don't expect
enough material to provide clinical context.
the ACP Flashcards are worth doing once --
And I attended the live ACP board review course in Chicago in June. Six days of lecture -- nearly got pressure sores from that one!
Felt really strong coming out of the test. I was pleased that much of the ICU/Hospital material wasn't there. I've been in practice for
30 years -- taking the test is a bucket list thing -- I've been completely outpatient and overseas for the last 10 years and I really feared
tackling modern inpatient material now just for the test. I suppose they moved that to the Hospitalist Boards. Good place for it.
I am also happy to see eponyms going away. Modern disease descriptions are enough to get in the ball park, but names like Wegner's and
Goodpasture's are still good for impressing medical students. Frankly that's all they ever were good for.
I don't know how much we can say legally about test content. Very little acid base, the one ventilator question was cartoonishly easy, only a
couple of blood smears, really easy ones too. Statistics were really dumbed down and there were only a couple. I was glad to see some large
joint exams, I think they put more general internal medicine on this test than in the past -- totally a guess.
They did not bury me in new drug names -- antivirals, immunological agents, new wave antibiotics. They got me on a derm photo -- maybe
I should have done Derm twice like everything else. Don't know what the heck that was. There was one question I have no idea what the heck
they were talking about. But only one. And they took mercy with the neuro --
Not knowing whether I passed I'm going out on a limb, but I was expecting far worse. I am a big believer in multi-modality learning. Written,
audio, question and answer. Engages very different brain pathways and creates synergies. The live review was worth doing, but that alone would
have fallen way short. The lectures were peppered with 'you will see this on the boards, never in practice' items and dang it, a few of them were on the boards. They pointed out that the big three sections tested would be cardio, pulmonary, and GI -- they were right. The two stat questions were made
very easy from the explanation given at the live review.
The MSKAP Audio was really good, a bit corny at times, but the discussion generated some really useful clinical context and did so much more effectively than reading the text. I had intended to read the MKSAP text, but after doing audio only on cardio and doing really well on the questions I went all in
on the audio. The audio editing was by no means Grammy winning, and a few of the sections were out of order, but the needed material was there.
The MSKAP iPad app is nice. It allows taking the questions, clearing only the wrong answers, then allowing one to take just those. There are links to the relevant text, and on the my iPad Medscape and Google Scholar are a keystroke away.
As far as when to start reviewing -- six months is good. Go through it all -- identify weaknesses, polish them -- then go through it all again. Stop studying a day or two before the exam. As importantly as any facts study how the question writers think. What is important to them. Less big testing, more lifestyle changes, more patient education, but study the crisises -- the act now or die problems.
I'll post whether I passed or not in October. This forum was helpful. Thanks.
