ABPM Issues Their Position Statement on the Current Consideration of Changes to Podiatric Residency Education - Commentary
The Council on Podiatric Medical Education (CPME) is currently involved in a re-evaluation and consideration of modifications to CPME 320, STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF PODIATRIC MEDICINE AND SURGERY RESIDENCIES, which is the document which defines and regulates podiatric residency programs. The American Board of Podiatric Medicine (ABPM) and the American Board of Foot and Ankle Surgery (ABFAS) have been asked to participate in this process as well as other interested parties. ABPM released their recommendations in the form of a position statement on Wednesday evening and I had a chance to thoroughly read and review them today.
Read the ABPM Positions on the Future of Podiatric Residency Education>>>
After consideration, it is clear to me that ABPM did an excellent piece of work that will contribute greatly to the work that CPME has ahead of it in its consideration of how podiatric residency programs should be structured and run in the years ahead to best meet the needs of the profession and the public that it serves. I see the potential for some very positive change to come out of this hard work that ABPM has done. Kudos to the ABPM Board of Directors and leadership for this great contribution to the growth of the podiatry profession.
I wish to make a few comments on a few of the position statements.
Position #5 - The terminology referring to the specialty of “podiatric orthopaedics and primary podiatric medicine” should be changed to “podiatric medicine” throughout the Council documents.
YES! The arcane and obscure term, “podiatric orthopaedics and primary podiatric medicine” should be retired and heretofore replaced by the term, “podiatric medicine”. That is an important improvement in my eyes, not at all trivial.
Position #6 - There should be a single residency training program, three years of length, in podiatric medicine and surgery.
I understand ABPM’s desire to keep residency training uniform and standardized on the PMSR model, and that since 98% have met the criteria for the added RRA qualification, ALL should meet that requirement and the distinction eliminated. My issue continues to be the lack of opportunity for diversity among the PMSR programs. We need podiatrists who emphasize different sub-specialties in their practices. I think we need residency programs that emphasize different sub-specialties as well. ABPM didn’t address the wasted time spent by residents and directors/attendings in training the 30% of residents who intend to be general practice podiatrists in advanced foot and ankle surgery, when they don’t intend to be advanced foot and ankle surgeons. That we train all residents in advanced foot and ankle surgery is perverse. Maybe they believe that this is not the right time to tackle this issue. I believe it will need to be tackled moving forward and that this is a particularly good time to address it.
Position #8 - Residency program competencies and resident evaluations should be based on milestones and not minimum activity volumes (MAVs).
I would like to learn more about Milestones as the method to determine competency. The two terms seem synonymous. It’s remarkable that the APMA BOT has already endorsed this (See Appendix A). Kudos to them. But there is no purpose in adopting this method if MAVs remain. The two systems for quality assurance are redundant. The CPME 320 guiding statement, “Resource-based, competency-driven, assessment-validated” doesn’t require MAVs. They were overkill and should be relegated to history. More autonomy should be given to residency directors to determine which residents achieve which competencies. This grading by directors is just one more peer review step along the path to board certification. I personally wouldn’t mind if residents left their program with a check list, a report showing exactly what milestone they reached and which ones they didn’t during their three-year training program. How much more responsible can a residency director be than to make these decisions and create this report?
Position #12 - Podiatric Clinic and Office Encounters should not be reduced and should be documented and enforced similar to all other required competencies.
I agree with ABPM in regard to increasing the emphasis on clinic and office-based encounters. The fundamental fact that podiatric practice is an office/clinic-based practice has been under-emphasized in the past 30 years in our drive to become hospital-based surgeons. The current MAV for Podiatric clinic/office encounters is 1,000, or about one patient encounter a day during the three years of residency. It should be much higher. I searched CPME 320 for the standards for providing office/clinic based encounters, and all I found was the MAV of 1,000 and under section 6.1, the description of the PMSR curriculum, Paragraph A, Section 4, “Formulate and implement an appropriate plan of management, including: Direct participation of the resident in the evaluation and management of patients in a clinic/office setting.” Under section 6.3, they go on to limit it, “Twenty percent is the maximum proportion of residency education that is acceptable to be conducted in a podiatric private practice office-based setting.” This does leave open the possibility of more encounters in a hospital-based clinic, if one exists. I think we share this imbalance issue in our residency programs between hospital inpatient vs clinic outpatient with other specialties like orthopedics, ENT, neurology. I just think exposing podiatric residents to patient cases from first encounter to resolution should receive greater emphasis, because that is fundamentally what we all do in practice.
That’s about all I have to say, except to affirm that I support the efforts of ABPM, ABFAS, and CPME in continuing to evolve the standards of education in the podiatry profession to best meet the needs of the profession and the public that we serve.
Comments
There are 2 comments for this article
Hi Alan, This whole topic for weeks has left me totally forlorn. Every single comment ignores some truths we must confront if we will ever move forward. My involvement in the profession ranges from student 77-81, Resident 81-82, Fellow 82-83, Academic appointment NYCPM in various capacities, 84- Present, Second Fellowship 93-95, Private Practice 84-1998, Full time Medical School appointmentt 1998-Present. First, we must confront that we treated each other like garbage. Those emotions span decades. Members of our profession in the time of evolving training and practice opportunities told hospital administrators that there is only one kind of qualified podiatrist. They told insurance companies that the best bang for their buck is one kind of qualified podiatrist. They formed "panels" under the total sham guise of legitimate credentialing, to exclude their colleagues from participation, and some made 100's of thousands of dollars (and possibly more for doing so). I was asked by a test committee member for the ABPS to submit test questions specifically on melanoma and did so diligently and with pleasure, only to be told after submission that they cannot be used, simply because I was not ABPS certified. When the Podiatry Institute took over CME for Massachusetts a few years ago, I was summarily dropped from the lecture schedule that had already been agreed on with the Massachusetts society. I could go on and on but I am speaking for all of my colleagues here, who were similarly affected by this fratricide. That would be the MAJORITY Alan, not just a whining few. Now we have a boat load of students who claim they want parity. Well I can tell you first hand they don't or they define parity on their own terms. Being told in podiatry school that you are equal has not cut it and never will. Stating that but for a psych and a gyn course we have the same training is a lie. Just for the record, I don't have any problem being a DPM that is different. As an example, when I had my residency, which was sunset two years ago, I had arranged parity in training experience in pathology, dermatology, emergency medicine, and internal medicine with medical interns. Guess what, when given the same work load as their medical school co-interns, all of a sudden they didn't really want parity. One such resident was given an opportunity to participate in cutting edge tendon research in a state of the art orthopedic research laboratory here at Mount Sinai. When he found out that research is done nights and weekends, that was the end of it for him. There are of course exceptions... but too few to make a dent. If the student we are introducing into the residency model that you envision will thrive, a ton of retrofit has to occur at the podiatry college level. The current surgery-craving glory has its roots in the poor collegiality that existed in our profession 40 years ago. We will soon enough die off and it will be forgotten. And the current podiatry students that graduate and say they went to "medical school" and call themselves "Foot and Ankle Reconstructive Surgeons," will just create confusion and anxiety for themselves (not the small percentage who actually are as so described) because the patient with an ingrown toenail won't know where to go.
Don’t be forlorn, Bryan. Yes, there is plenty of reason for bitterness when looking back. There are certain immutable forces in the universe. One is that power is never relinquished voluntarily. It almost always needs to be fought for. Another is that everyone thinks they represent the moral high ground. Another is that people with big egos always eat their young. That apparently makes them feel good. I don’t admire that, but I do recognize it. In my mind, it’s not a strength, it’s a weakness. And of collegiality, it’s always been optional and while you and I gravitate naturally toward it, and enjoy it, not all do. I recognize everything that you said in your comments as a true accounting. Podiatrists who achieved status have blocked others from doing the same due to some form of self-righteousness on their part. Residents have shown laziness and may not be as motivated, certainly are not as driven as our generation was. Yes, there is plenty of reason for bitterness when looking back. At this point in my life, I really am more interested in looking ahead. I like working on a cause that I truly care about, and I see the current surgery-driven-focus of podiatric education as a path that is, necessarily, leading to the neglect in training in the majority of what podiatrists most need to be doing. It is not sustainable to train all podiatrists to be advanced foot and ankle surgeons. It is not sustainable to represent podiatry as a predominantly surgical specialty. It is not in our best interests to do so, and I won’t stop poking at that trend until I play out my attempt to get it changed.