Has anyone else here participated in the NCCPA blueprint meetings?

[Miaow]

I am curious if anyone else here has gone to Georgia and participated in the NCCPA PANRE blueprint meeting? It was a very interesting experience. I'd love to talk about it with others who have been a part of this. 

[gbrothers98]

Made myself available but was not asked to attend. This has occurred several times. Seems like the NCCPA cherry picks across regions, specialties and also age when placing invitations. I, and I assume others on this forum, would be very interested in what occurs at these meetings. The reality for me is that I am on a 10 year cycle now and will be 60+ when required to recert again. I personally believe that if the NCCPA is moving away from high stakes exams, the replacement will be more frequent assessments of general medical knowledge and more emphasis on the CAQ process. Are you willing to share what occurred or are you under obligation to keep meeting particulars confidential? 

George

[Miaow]

They encouraged us to share the details about the process and what we were working on as a group and only asked that we wait to discuss the specifics until they become available to everyone in about February 2018. The meeting in December was what they described as the culmination of 2 years work. I was a part of this meeting only and none of the past ones. 

If you recall the survey that was sent out a few months ago, it asked you to determine what content should be included on the PANRE and how much you expect a person to know about the content. Example, should aortic stenosis be part of the core knowledge and should it be tested at a cognitive level of 1, 2 or 3 (these levels were defined). 

At the meeting in December there were 16 PA's total all considered "content experts" in their particular subject matter. We were tasked with using the data from those surveys combined with the progress made from past meetings to determine core content for the PANRE and at which cognitive level it should be tested at (i.e. what conditions would you expect the average PA to know in general across all specialties and how much should they be expected to know). 

As groups of 4, we went over our data and then as a large group we discussed any topics that were in question or that were very borderline in terms of survey replies that suggested an even split of votes about the item and what the cognitive level should be. 

Overall, it was a very interesting experience and at the end of the 2nd day we had completed the new blueprint for the PANRE which was then going to be sent to the Board for approval. I felt like it was a process as free of bias as you could hope for by using the data from the people who responded to the survey (22,000 out of something like 110,000). 

[gbrothers98]

Thanks for the insight. 

Sounds like a reasonable process to craft a more manageable and applicable blueprint.

In combination with the current pilot program for alternative PANRE this seems like a significant attempt to revamp.

Look forward to see what NCCPA has to say in the spring.

G

[sas5814]

That is really very good to hear. I have frequently expressed my concerns about an organization with as much power as they have being about as transparent and communicative as a black hole. It will be very interesting to see the end result.