ABSTRACT
The editorial discusses the need for the Specialist Title to be valued by Medical Societies, as a stage after the conclusion of medical residency and a mandatory prerequisite for taking the tests. Finally, it shows the experience of seven Medical Societies with their specialist title exams.
Keywords:
Medical Societies; Professional Training; Health Care Quality; Academic Performance
RESUMO
O editorial discute a necessidade de valorização do Título de Especialista pelas Sociedades Médicas, como etapa posterior à conclusão da residência médica e pré-requisito obrigatório para prestar as provas. Por fim, mostra a experiência de sete Sociedades Médicas para suas provas de título de especialista.
Palavras-chave:
Sociedades Médicas; Capacitação Profissional; Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde; Desempenho Acadêmico
INTRODUCTION
For any of the 55 specialties and 62 areas of medical practice recognized in Brazil (Brazil, 2024),, the Federal Council of Medicine, through its Regional Councils (CRM), can only register as specialists (granting the Specialist Qualification Registration - RQE) physicians who present: 1) a Certificate of Completion of Medical Residency accredited by the National Commission of Medical Residency (CNRM) and/or 2) a Specialist Title (ST) granted by a Brazilian Association or Society of the respective specialty affiliated to the Brazilian Medical Association (AMB) and whose public notice for the Specialist Title exam followed the rules of the AMB and is approved by it (FALK, 2006; AMB, 2021).
Medical Residency and Specialist Title are certificates of different nature, being independent. A doctor may have one or both, but each entitles the specialist to register as such with the CRM. By determination of the AMB, a Specialist Title is no longer to be granted only due to excellent curriculum or proof of completion of Medical Residency (FALK, 2006). Currently, it is necessary to pass exams that involve a written test (cognitive assessment) and a practical one (assessment of technical and communication skills).
Unlike what the legislation allows in Brazil, where one can obtain the RQE issued by the CRM only with the medical residency program (MRP) completion certificate, other countries have a very different policy from ours for issuing ST. Medical residency is a necessary and indispensable prerequisite for the candidate to register and take the ST exams. Without medical residency, application for the exams is not even allowed. These are conducted through cognitive and practical evaluations by a panel of independent experts for the effective proof of competencies, skills, and attitudes, after which only then the ST is granted to the approved candidate. Never, however, do they admit a ST issuance based exclusively on the medical residency completion certificate. This is indeed a necessary condition, but by no means sufficient for the ST granting (Fernandes, 2024).
This double path to titling must have a deadline to end (Oliveira, 2024). Titles by scientific societies should be granted, with strict criteria, only to specialist physicians trained through residency programs formally accredited by the National Commission for Medical Residency (CNRM). On the one hand, it is evident that for this to occur, there is a concomitant imperative to expand the quantity and quality of residency programs in all specialties (and according to the needs of the country) and ensure adequate amounts of funds for the residency scholarship (Oliveira, 2024).
In their early years, Medical Societies allowed the enrollment of physicians without residency to take the ST exam. Of course, the intention at that time was, on a provisional basis, to give the opportunity for many seasoned doctors with no residency but with solid proven experience to have the opportunity to render their Specialist Title official if approved in the exams. This was justified since MRPs were scarce and only a small portion of medical school graduates sought this type of training. This situation without any standardization lasted for a long time, and the regulation of medical residency only occurred in 1977 through a presidential decree defining that the MRP would constitute a modality of postgraduate education for physicians, in the form of a specialization course, characterized by in-service training, in a regime of exclusive dedication, functioning in health institutions, university or not, under the guidance of medical professionals with high ethical and professional qualifications (Brasil, 1977). It would not be advisable to prevent all other doctors who did not meet these prerequisites from taking the test, at that time, 47 years ago. It is clear, therefore, that this initial permission for doctors without medical residency to take the ST exams should be understood as transition rules, to be extinguished as soon as possible. Nowadays, that idea of allowing doctors without residency to take the ST exam no longer has any reason to exist because the doctors from that time are no longer active. But the fact is, this permission still exists. This situation can only change by legal provision. Many decades have passed, and now we have MRP graduates in large numbers, supposedly formed with the competence matrices required for the adequate training of the medical specialist. We agree this needs to change. We need to address this issue with the same responsibility verified in countries that treat the training of medical specialists with the necessary seriousness. Also, we need to institute, here in Brazil, the completion of a MRP as a mandatory prerequisite to the ST exam application. It is past time we apply seriousness to our criteria for granting the ST (Fernandes, 2024).
This enduring distortion is exemplified by category E of the Brazilian College of Surgeons’ Specialist Title Exam, where candidates must prove six years of experience as a general surgeon in Brazil through a statement and list of surgeries performed in the last 24 months up to the time of registration, signed by the Hospital Director and/or Chief of the Surgery Service. Proof can be provided through documents issued by several Services and Hospitals that together add up to the minimum six required years. The surgical procedures, for which there must be mandatory proof of performance as the “Responsible Surgeon”, must be both elective and emergency procedures provided for in the competency and content matrix of General Surgery at the National Medical Residency Commission (CNCRM).
The Specialist Titles awarded by Medical Societies serve as an indicator of competence, quality, and professional ethics in medical practice. By establishing strict criteria for certification, requiring continuous professional updating, and monitoring the practice of holders, Medical Societies play a key role in protecting against professional malpractice and promoting high health care standards (Pereira Júnior et al, 2024).
It is very interesting the wealth of stories and experiences of each of the Medical Societies in the construction of their specialist title tests in relation to: 1) Year of the Society creation; 2) Year of specialist title exam start; 3) types of assessment (cognitive - multiple-choice and written tests; oral - discussion of clinical cases; face-to-face or online simulated stations; and other types of assessment); 4) how to prepare each exam; 5) approval criteria; 6) form of evaluators selection and training; 7) form of results publication; 8) way of approaching appeals and questions about the various types of exams; 9) offer of a training course for candidates (if so, what type); and 10) title validity and recognition time.
The table below compares the main information and indicators about the specialist title exam of seven of the most traditional Medical Societies..
REFERENCES
- 1 Associação Médica Brasileira. Normativa de regulamentação para obtenção de título de especialista ou certificado de área de atuação. São Paulo: AMB; 2021. Disponível em: https://amb.Org.Br/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/normativa-para-formula%c3%87%c3%83o-de-edital-para-exame-de-sufici%c3%8ancia_t%c3%8dtulo-de-especialista-e-%c3%81rea-de-atua%c3%87%c3%83o_2021.Pdf.
-
2 Brasil. Presidência da República. Decreto No 80.281, DE 5 DE SETEMBRO DE 1977: Regulamenta a Residência Médica, cria a Comissão Nacional de Residência Médica e dá outras providências. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/1970-1979/d80281.htm#:~:text=Regulamenta%20a%20Resid%C3%AAncia%20M%C3
» https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/1970-1979/d80281.htm#:~:text=Regulamenta%20a%20Resid%C3%AAncia%20M%C3 -
3 BRASIL. Conselho Federal de Medicina. Resolução CFM nº 2380/2024. Homologa a Portaria CME nº 1/2024, que atualiza a relação de especialidades e áreas de atuação médicas aprovadas pela Comissão Mista de Especialidades. [Internet]. Disponível em: https://sistemas.cfm.org.br/normas/visualizar/resolucoes/BR/2024/2380 Acesso em: 15/11/2024.Portaria CME nº 1/2024, que atualiza a relação de especialidades e áreas de atuação médicas aprovadas pela Comissão Mista de Especialidades. [Internet]. Disponível em: https://sistemas.cfm.org.br/normas/visualizar/resolucoes/BR/2024/2380 Acesso em: 15/11/2024.
» https://sistemas.cfm.org.br/normas/visualizar/resolucoes/BR/2024/2380 -
4 Fernandes, CE. Carta ao editor: Comentários a "Até quando emitiremos títulos de especialista para médicos sem residência médica?". Rev Col Bras Cir. 2024;51:e20243828. doi: 10.1590/0100-6991e-20243828.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6991e-20243828 -
5 OLIVEIRA, FA. Até quando emitiremos títulos de especialista para médicos sem residência médica? Cartas ao editor. Rev. Col. Bras. Cir. 2024;51:e-20243782. doi: 10.1590/0100-6991e-20243782.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6991e-20243782 -
6 Pereira Júnior GA, Colleoni Neto R, Silva LE, Von Bahten LC, Fernandes CE, Portari-Filho PE. Por que as Sociedades Médicas devem cada vez mais cuidar de suas provas de Título de Especialista e porque os profissionais médicos devem obtê-lo? Editorial. Rev. Col. Bras. Cir. 2024;51:e20243750EDIT01. doi: 10.1590/0100-6991e-20243750EDIT01.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6991e-20243750EDIT01
