Optimizing board exam outcomes: A structured exam preparation curriculum for hematology/oncology fellows.

Abstract

e21011 Background: The increasing complexity of Hematology and Oncology necessitates board-certified specialists to ensure baseline clinical competence. However, an average 8% failure rate for first-time test takers suggests, achieving certification is challenging. Fellows often rely on costly, independent board review courses, adding financial and time burdens. Research indicates that curriculum-based teaching approaches enhance exam readiness. We sought to develop and assess the effectiveness of a standardized board review curriculum for Medical Oncology, offering a scalable model for both community and university-based fellowship programs. Methods: Curriculum design was informed by a fellow needs assessment survey, In-Training Examination (ITE) scores, and board pass rates. A structured board review series, aligned with the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Medical Oncology blueprints, was scheduled from September 2024 to May 2025. Faculty and chief fellows led monthly Zoom sessions featuring high-yield topics were developed from existing board review resources . Monthly topic-based tests reinforced learning. Effect will be assessed using a Qualtrics survey to measure fellows’ confidence pre and post-series, alongside analysis of ITE and board scores. Descriptive statistics summarize study variables. Results: 22 of 29 fellows (75%) completed the pre-board review survey. Most respondents (74%) were aged 30–34, and 63% identified as female. The survey included 89% of first, 60% of second, and 80% of third year fellows. Most fellows (79%) planned to pursue dual certification in Hematology and Medical Oncology, with 11% opting for Medical Oncology alone. In terms of study habits for boards, at the time of the pre-survey, 10% studied daily, 25% weekly, 30% monthly, 15% less than monthly, and 20% had not started preparing. ASCO-SEP and ASH-SAP were the primary study resources for 88%. Most fellows (88%) expressed neutral or partial agreement regarding the adequacy of the fellowship board preparation curriculum. Confidence in answering board-related questions was low to intermediate across all levels of training. Compared to our prior unstructured review curriculum, participation in our revised curriculum increased from 10% to over 50% in 2024–2025. Monthly test participation increased from 3% to 53%, with most fellows answering nearly 95% of questions correctly. Conclusions: While in the early phases of implementation, preliminary results suggest that a structured, curriculum-based approach may enhance board exam readiness among fellows. We plan to evaluate the effect of our board review series through pre / post surveys, as well as by comparing ITE scores and board pass rates. Additionally, we aim to assess the longitudinal curriculum’s sustainability within our program. This model holds potential for adoption across other specialties to improve certification outcomes.