Sharing Examination Questions Threatens Trust in Medical Profession

Experts call for medical leaders to establish guidelines, embed honesty in academic cultures, reported in Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Rochester, MN, April 29, 2013

Unethical behavior among physicians-in-training threatens to erode public trust and confidence in the medical profession, say two academic physicians in the current issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Reacting to CNN reports last year about the widespread use of "recalls" and "airplane notes" by radiology and dermatology residents, Gregory W. Ruhnke, MD, MS, MPH, of the Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, and David J. Doukas, MD, of the Department of Family and Geriatric Medicine, University of Louisville, call on leaders in medical education to establish guidelines and change the culture of medical school and training programs.

Illegal reproduction and transmission of board certification examination questions have received wide public attention recently. In 2010, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) suspended or revoked the certification of 139 physicians found to be disclosing or soliciting examination questions for a board review prep company in New Jersey; the company encouraged physicians to recall questions from memory and convey them to the course director for inclusion in course materials. In early 2012, CNN revealed that doctors training to become dermatologists and radiologists had for years shared exam questions by memorizing them and writing them down after their board certification examinations.

Ruhnke and Doukas say there is a crucial distinction between cheating and guided study, noting that historical test questions are routinely used throughout higher education. They cite the American College of Physicians’ Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program, which includes a summary of high-yield information vetted by post-examination residents to choose material likely to appear on future examinations. Some physicians have defended the use of “recalls.” Moreover, “the difference between the use of questions reproduced verbatim and a focused study guide based on examinee input lies in the detail and specificity of information transmitted,” they say.

The authors review the literature and discuss what drives dishonest behavior. Cheating is surprisingly common among medical students, with estimates ranging widely between five and 88%. Of medical students surveyed, 59% believed that cheating was impossible to eliminate because of its pervasiveness. Perhaps of greatest concern for the public, cheating on examinations by medical students correlates with falsifying information in a patient’s medical record.

“Difficult exam content unnecessary for clinical care, the desire to assist friends, and peer behavior are important factors,” says Ruhnke. For example, subjects not immediately relevant for clinical care, such as biochemistry and pharmacology, are seen as a “rite of passage.” Assignment and test content that medical students view as unnecessary for clinical care makes them more likely to cheat.

The authors consider a number of potential interventions that might reduce the impetus to reproduce questions in verbatim form, such as not reusing test questions and the return of oral examinations, but recognize separate challenges of such solutions. Avoiding the reuse of test questions might threaten the statistical reliability and consistency of passing standards. In addition, harsh punishments are unlikely to be completely effective because their impact on peer behavior is not sufficiently powerful.

The authors urge the American Board of Medical Specialties and the Association of American Medical Colleges to establish guidelines regarding the detail and specificity of information that examinees may ethically disclose, and to be proactive in requiring examinees to acknowledge that reproduction or dissemination of test materials is both illegal and a violation of professional standards.

“Successful certification must demonstrate that physicians are vested with the trust of their peers but also the public. Sponsoring rigorous examinations that cover material critical for patient care will bolster what the profession provides to patients,” according to the authors. “The literature suggests that this can best be achieved by embedding academic honesty into institutional cultures. Ultimately, the sanctity of our profession and the faith that patients place in us as physicians demands the highest moral standards.”

In an accompanying Editorial, Christine K. Cassel, MD, Eric S. Holmboe, MD, and Lorie B. Slass, MA, of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), Philadelphia, welcome the work of Ruhnke and Doukas as an important “call to action” for academic medicine to actively, and intentionally, strengthen the culture of medical school and training programs to value integrity and to respect the need for examinations to demonstrate competence throughout a professional career.

In its legal actions and information campaign related to the board review prep company transgressions, “ABIM conveyed a clear message to the physician community that ABIM will not tolerate unethical behavior from board candidates, that test takers need to know that this kind of ‘brain dumping’ is grossly unethical, and that any physician who seeks to compromise the integrity of the ABIM examination process will face swift and serious consequences,” explains Cassel.

“The certifying examination is one of the first tests of professionalism for physicians. ‘Everyone does it’ is never a sufficient answer when faced with an ethical dilemma, and if the profession is to meet its societal obligation to uphold the highest ethical standards, we most certainly cannot accept such an excuse from board certified physicians,” she concludes.

# # #

Notes for Editors
“Trust in Residents and Board Examinations: When Sharing Crosses the Boundary,” by Gregory W. Ruhnke, MD, MS, MPH, and David J. Doukas, MD, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.02.003

“Editorial: Professional Responsibility and Certifying Examinations,” Christine K. Cassel, MD, Eric S. Holmboe, MD, and Lorie B. Slass, MA, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.03.004

Both appear inMayo Clinic Proceedings, Volume 88, Issue 5 (May, 2013), published by Elsevier.

Full text of the articles is available to credentialed journalists upon request. Contact Rachael Zaleski at +1 215 239 3658or mcpmedia@elsevier.com to obtain copies. Journalists wishing to set up interviews with Dr. Ruhnke should contact John Easton, Senior Science Writer, The University of Chicago Medicine at +1 773 795 5225, +1 773 322 7380 (cell), or john.easton@uchospitals.edu. For Dr. Cassel please contact Lorie Slass, Senior Vice President for Communications, ABIM, at lslass@abim.org.

About Mayo Clinic Proceedings
The flagship journal of Mayo and one of the premier peer-reviewed clinical journals in general medicine, Mayo Clinic Proceedings is among the most widely read and highly cited scientific publications for physicians, with a circulation of approximately 125,000. While the Journal is sponsored by Mayo Clinic, it welcomes submissions from authors worldwide, publishing articles that focus on clinical medicine and support the professional and educational needs of its readers. www.mayoclinicproceedings.org

About Mayo Clinic
Mayo Clinic is a nonprofit worldwide leader in medical care, research, and education for people from all walks of life. For more information visit www.mayoclinic.org/about and www.mayoclinic.org/news

About Elsevier

Elsevier is a world-leading provider of information solutions that enhance the performance of science, health, and technology professionals, empowering them to make better decisions, deliver better care, and sometimes make groundbreaking discoveries that advance the boundaries of knowledge and human progress. Elsevier provides web-based, digital solutions — among them ScienceDirect, Scopus, Elsevier Research Intelligence, and ClinicalKey — and publishes nearly 2,200 journals, including The Lancet and Cell, and over 25,000 book titles, including a number of iconic reference works.

The company is part of Reed Elsevier Group PLC, a world leading provider of professional information solutions in the Science, Medical, Legal and Risk and Business sectors, which is jointly owned by Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. The ticker symbols are REN (Euronext Amsterdam), REL (London Stock Exchange), RUK and ENL (New York Stock Exchange).

Media contact
Rachael Zaleski
Elsevier
+ 1 215 239 3658
mcpmedia@elsevier.com