Howard D Silverman1,2,3, Elaine B Steen4, Jacqueline N Carpenito5, Christopher J Ondrula6, Jeffrey J Williamson4, Douglas B Fridsma4. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, The University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 3. Department of Bioethics and Medical Humanism, The University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 4. American Medical Informatics Association, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 5. ACT-ProExam, New York, New York, USA. 6. American Board of Preventive Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to develop a comprehensive and current description of what Clinical Informatics Subspecialty (CIS) physician diplomates do and what they need to know. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent subject matter expert panels drawn from and representative of the 1695 CIS diplomates certified by the American Board of Preventive Medicine contributed to the development of a draft CIS delineation of practice (DoP). An online survey was distributed to all CIS diplomates in July 2018 to validate the draft DoP. A total of 316 (18.8%) diplomates completed the survey. Survey respondents provided domain, task, and knowledge and skill (KS) ratings; qualitative feedback on the completeness of the DoP; and detailed professional background and demographic information. RESULTS: This practice analysis resulted in a validated, comprehensive, and contemporary DoP comprising 5 domains, 42 tasks, and 139 KS statements. DISCUSSION: The DoP that emerged from this study differs from the 2009 CIS Core Content in 2 respects. First, the DoP reflects the growth in amount, types, and utilization of health data through the addition of a practice domain, tasks, and KS statements focused on data analytics and governance. Second, the final DoP describes CIS practice in terms of tasks in addition to identifying knowledge required for competent practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study (1) articulates CIS diplomate tasks and knowledge used in practice, (2) provides data that will enable the American Board of Preventive Medicine CIS examination to align with current practice, (3) informs clinical informatics fellowship program requirements, and (4) provides insight into maintenance of certification requirements.
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to develop a comprehensive and current description of what Clinical Informatics Subspecialty (CIS) physician diplomates do and what they need to know. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent subject matter expert panels drawn from and representative of the 1695 CIS diplomates certified by the American Board of Preventive Medicine contributed to the development of a draft CIS delineation of practice (DoP). An online survey was distributed to all CIS diplomates in July 2018 to validate the draft DoP. A total of 316 (18.8%) diplomates completed the survey. Survey respondents provided domain, task, and knowledge and skill (KS) ratings; qualitative feedback on the completeness of the DoP; and detailed professional background and demographic information. RESULTS: This practice analysis resulted in a validated, comprehensive, and contemporary DoP comprising 5 domains, 42 tasks, and 139 KS statements. DISCUSSION: The DoP that emerged from this study differs from the 2009 CIS Core Content in 2 respects. First, the DoP reflects the growth in amount, types, and utilization of health data through the addition of a practice domain, tasks, and KS statements focused on data analytics and governance. Second, the final DoP describes CIS practice in terms of tasks in addition to identifying knowledge required for competent practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study (1) articulates CIS diplomate tasks and knowledge used in practice, (2) provides data that will enable the American Board of Preventive Medicine CIS examination to align with current practice, (3) informs clinical informatics fellowship program requirements, and (4) provides insight into maintenance of certification requirements.
Authors: Reed M Gardner; J Marc Overhage; Elaine B Steen; Benson S Munger; John H Holmes; Jeffrey J Williamson; Don E Detmer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-12-11 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Charles Safran; M Michael Shabot; Benson S Munger; John H Holmes; Elaine B Steen; John R Lumpkin; Don E Detmer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-12-11 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Christoph U Lehmann; Adi V Gundlapalli; Jeffrey J Williamson; Douglas B Fridsma; William R Hersh; Marie Krousel-Wood; Christopher J Ondrula; Benson Munger Journal: Yearb Med Inform Date: 2018-04-22
Authors: Robert W Turer; Miguel Arribas; Sarah M Balgord; Stephanie Brooks; Laura R Hopson; Benjamin S Bassin; Richard Medlin Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2020-09-14
Authors: Cynthia S Gadd; Elaine B Steen; Carla M Caro; Sandra Greenberg; Jeffrey J Williamson; Douglas B Fridsma Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Robert W Turer; Bruce P Levy; Jonathan D Hron; Natalie M Pageler; Dara E Mize; Ellen Kim; Christoph U Lehmann Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-02-26 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Chunya Huang; Ross Koppel; John D McGreevey; Catherine K Craven; Richard Schreiber Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Tara M McLane; Robert Hoyt; Chad Hodge; Elizabeth Weinfurter; Erin E Reardon; Karen A Monsen Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Sky Corby; Keaton Whittaker; Joan S Ash; Vishnu Mohan; James Becton; Nicholas Solberg; Robby Bergstrom; Benjamin Orwoll; Christopher Hoekstra; Jeffrey A Gold Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.796