Moving Home

Hi Readers,

Its becoming a little difficult to maintain two blogs now that I am running so short on time, so I have decided to merge them. This is the blog which has to go, since I will be combining the postings here with my personal blog, which can be accessed at:

http://pranab-chatterjee.blogspot.com

Well, eventually I will purchase a top level domain and make it all professional looking, but till then this address (well, also the .co.cc domain) will have to do. I will not be shifting the Feedburner Feeds, because when you signed up for the posts on this blog, you expected receiving exclusively medical news related posts. However, after moving, I will be posting both medical news and personal stuff, which might not hold your attention.

If however, you want to continue encouraging me and follwoing me, feel free to subscribe to my other blog.

http://pranab-chatterjee.blogspot.com.

Thanks!

USMLE Scores to Your Medical School

ECFMG TO PROVIDE USMLE PERFORMANCE DATA TO INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL SCHOOLS

ECFMG may provide international medical schools with data on the performance of their students and graduates who apply to ECFMG for USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK), and USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS). As announced previously on the ECFMG website at www.ecfmg.org/announce.htm#perfdata, this applies to all exam administrations for which an examinee applies on or after November 2, 2009.

Data will be provided to medical schools electronically through the ECFMG Medical School Web Portal (EMSWP) and will include whether each examinee passed the exam administration, and, for Step 1 and Step 2 CK, the examinee's numerical score on both two-digit and three-digit scales.

Examinees have the option to have their exam results withheld from their medical school. To have exam results withheld from his/her medical school, the examinee must submit a request through ECFMG's Interactive Web Application (IWA), available on the ECFMG website at www.ecfmg.org.

To view information on ECFMG's practices regarding the provision of these data to international medical schools and the process by which examinees can request to have their exam results withheld from their medical school, read the Important Information on this topic at https://iwa2.ecfmg.org/perfdatanotice.asp.

bFrom the ECFMG (r) Reporte

US Ends HIV Travel Ban

The US has ended a ban on the travel of HIV Positive individuals from other countries to the US. In a step that, in one stroke, has made me a huge fan of his, and has lifted a very serious discriminatory rule, Obama has justified the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him once more. Well, on issues like these, I have always been Probama, so I am glad that he took the step to de-stigmatize the disease. He said:

Twenty-two years ago, in a decision rooted in fear rather than fact, the United States instituted a travel ban on entry into the country for people living with HIV/AIDS. Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease -- yet we've treated a visitor living with it as a threat. We lead the world when it comes to helping stem the AIDS pandemic -- yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people from HIV from entering our own country.

Very touching indeed. He has always been a great orator. Anyways, read the full thing HERE. And I must add that this step should be hailed to be one of the more important health-care related political reform that needed to be done.



Kudos Mr. President.

Rebel Against Libel!

I wrote previously how the GMC has shuttered doctors against responding against unwarranted criticism by malicious patients. I have always been a great advocate for the freedom of speech and expression. This article in the British Medical Journal is something right after my heart. A report on the British libel laws and how they are shackling the freedom of expression by creating a "chill factor", this is the product of a recent panel discussion about science journalism and libel law at City University, London.

This is indeed a nice read, and well explains the perils of "publish and be damned"!

Complete Feedback for NBME Forms

The National Board of Medical Examiners(r) (NBME) offers web-based self-assessments to help medical students and graduates evaluate their readiness for the computer-based components of the United States Medical Licensing Examination(r) (USMLE(r)). The content of the Comprehensive Basic Science Self-Assessment (CBSSA) resembles the content of USMLE Step 1, while the content of the Comprehensive Clinical Science Self-Assessment (CCSSA) resembles the content of USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK).

The NBME is pleased to announce that it now provides expanded feedback for one form of the CBSSA and one form of the CCSSA. In addition to the performance profile and score interpretation guide available with all forms, the expanded feedback also shows the number of items answered incorrectly by content category, the average amount of time spent on each incorrect item, and the percentage of incorrect items marked during the assessment. The feedback also provides the capability to review the text of the incorrect items. The fee for expanded feedback forms is $60.00; the fee for standard forms is $45.00.

For complete information, to view a sample assessment, or to purchase an assessment, visit the NBME Self-Assessment Services website via www.nbme.org.

From the ECFMG Reporter

You Can't Answer Back

Now what do you do when someone criticizes you unnecessarily? If you, like me, are a vertebrate, you stand up and quell any such slanderous allegations that may affect you and your reputation. And often, in the art and science of medical practice, reputations are of the highest importance. And as we all know, like glass once shattered, it can never be put together again.

Now is the age of the Internet. So, what do you do, if a patient with a grudge against you launches a savage attack on you and your reputation online? If you follow the General Medical Council's guidelines, you will do NOTHING. Yeah, that is right. Except for expressing indignation at it!

The GMC believes that the doctor should assert his duty of legal and professional duty of confidentiality as a response. However, this seems to be a pretty lame excuse to me, and Jack Gilliat, the author of the BMJ criticism on this issue. Says Jack:

The GMC’s guidance is a step too far. If a patient has discussed a part of his or her medical condition in the public domain and in so doing denigrated a doctor without justification, surely the patient has surrendered medical confidentiality for this part, and the doctor has a moral, if not a human, right to set the record straight as a matter of public record if the patient refuses to recant flagrant untruths.

Couldn't agree more with him.

The GMC must believe in the age old adage that one shouldn't wrestle a pig because both get dirty and the pig likes it. By not descending to the nethers of mud slinging, the GMC believes that the doctor will be positioned atop the tower of untouchable supremacy and his stance will gain public credibility (though his practice may lose all patients!). The GMC lives in a glass house, maybe that is why they dont want to throw stones.

I sure am glad that the GMC does not administer my activities.



Gilliat, J. (2009). Muzzling doctors in the name of confidentiality BMJ, 339 (oct12 2) DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b4173

New Format for Disclosure of Interests

Take a look at this laundry list of authors of an article:

Jeffrey M Drazen, editor in chief, New England Journal of Medicine,

Martin B Van Der Weyden, editor, Medical Journal of Australia,

Paush Sahni, representative and past president, World Association of Medical Editors,

Jacob Rosenberg, editor, Journal of the Danish Medical Association,

Ana Marusic, editor in chief, Croatian Medical Journal,

Christine Laine, editor, Annals of Internal Medicine,

Sheldon Kotzin, associate director for library operations, National Library of Medicine,

Richard Horton, editor, Lancet,

Paul C Hébert, editor in chief, Canadian Medical Association Journal,

Charlotte Haug, editor in chief, Norwegian Medical Journal,

Fiona Godlee, editor in chief, BMJ,

Frank A Frizelle, editor in chief, New Zealand Medical Journal,

Peter W de Leeuw, executive editor, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine),

Catherine D DeAngelis, editor in chief, JAMA

Peter W de Leeuw, executive editor, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine),

Impressive, isn't it? Well, the international journal editors have come together to think of a new way to combat the highly contested and controversial topic of Disclosure of Interests in journal articles. In this editorial, which is being published in the above said journals simultaneously, a new format is being proposed. This will be in the Beta mode (testing mode, so to say) till April 2010, at the end of which, the big bosses of the publication world will put their heads together and see how things are turning out.

At present, the different journals use different formats, hence there is no uniformity in the declaration of competing interests by the authors. Keeping in view the fact that the issues like ghost writing and gift authorship are plaguing the world of medical publication, it seems like a timely intervention.

Another good thing is that because this is a standard format which can be saved in the user's computer, it can be partially filled in and modified according to the specific needs of the specific journal.

Check out the new format:

http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf

And a "filled out form for dummies":

http://www.icmje.org/sample_disclosure.pdf

Check it out. Its cool...




Drazen, J., Weyden, M., Sahni, P., Rosenberg, J., Marusic, A., Laine, C., Kotzin, S., Horton, R., Hebert, P., Haug, C., Godlee, F., Frizelle, F., Leeuw, P., & DeAngelis, C. (2009). Disclosure of competing interests BMJ, 339 (oct12 2) DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b4144