Vivacity Consulting

Bringing energy and experience to your CME activity

Wait a Minute: Rethinking the ACCME Accreditation Revisions

By

Rethinking the ACCME Accreditation Proposed Revisions

Today, I held a webmeeting with three of the smartest, most enthusiastic, ready-for-anything physician volunteers you can imagine.  We were conducting the overall mission assessment required by ACCME Accreditation Criterion 12 as the first step in a multi-month reaccreditation process. And it struck me.  If we eliminate C14 & 15, some of their motivation to get these changes accomplished might be reduced.  They are fired up to get these changes in place now so that we can measure the results.  Part of their enthusiasm stems from their core belief in the CME process, part of their enthusiasm is justifiably self-serving (they want to write a manuscript which may help them get promoted), but part of their enthusiasm, I really believe, comes from the fact that IT’S REQUIRED.  It’s human nature to respond to a deadline, and they know theirs is April 2014.

Maybe eliminating C14 & C15 might not be such a great idea.

ACCME reports that in the November 2012 cohort, 20-30% of providers were non-compliant with C15.  This could be a matter of timing (they didn’t start evaluating their program early enough to make changes and measure the effect.)  But it could also be because they missed the point.

C15 states, “The provider demonstrates that the impacts of program improvements, that are required to improve on the provider’s ability to meet the CME mission, are measured.” Without this, might we inadvertently stall the cycle of continuous improvement?

If we need to rethink this, what about the rest of the proposed changes?

I know that my job is easier when the rules are explicit – and Dr. Kopelow told us on the May 23, 2013 provider webinar that this is true for everyone. My smart, enthusiastic, BUSY physician volunteers would have been baffled if I tried to convince them that a mission statement should include anything more than our expected results … because “it doesn’t say so in the rules.” To me, it makes sense that we will continue to describe our purpose, content areas, target audience and type of activities in the mission statement, but to the person who doesn’t think about CME everyday, this might seem like a massive waste of time.

So, maybe ACCME Accreditation Criterion 1 should be left alone as well.

What do you think?  Make sure you submit your comments to the ACCME by July 2nd!

ACCME changes review

ACCME accreditation revisions – provider feedback due July 2nd!

 

From CME Police to CME Star

By

From CME Police to CME Star

How many of you feel like your committee of physician volunteers look at you and see this:

CME police

CME police

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s not very comfortable to wear that hat day in and day out.

There are ways to re-frame your position, however, so that you can demonstrate the value of the CME planning and documentation process.

I recommend a basic training (1 hour webinar or in person) for any group of new or revamped CME stakeholders.  Sometimes, this training starts with the image of the Wall Street Journal, and the question “Does anyone wish to see our organization’s name in a headline here?”  After reminding (or enlightening) these stakeholders about why the rules exist, suddenly, we are much more clearly on the same page – because none of us want biased education to be presented in the name of our organization.

Second, I give an overview of the vernacular used in CME.

(By the way, how often do we inadvertently contribute to our own problems? Here’s an example of what not to write to your Course Director:

“Dear Dr. Scott, 
The ACCME requires that you review the attached disclosures for your planned enduring material. If you find COI, you will need to review the presentation to ensure we stay compliant with the SCS.”

The bold words are NOT self-explanatory. Nothing alienates a motivated, intelligent volunteer more than feeling like they cannot understand what in the world your email means!)

Finally, I outline the process our organization follows to ensure compliance with all of the rules we must follow, demonstrating what we need from the planners and what we, from the CME office, might provide.  Often, when I show examples of the treasure-trove of data that I can provide from post-activity evaluations, I see wonder and excitement in the eyes of previously less-than-enthusiastic committee members.

The results: more engaged and empowered stakeholders.  And maybe a new hat for you.

CME star

CME star

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you’d like help putting together a training like the one I describe, please contact me!

Should We Love the ACCME Proposed Revisions to the Accreditation Standards?

By

HappyDanceTo Love or Not to Love the ACCME Proposed Revisions: That is the Question

As William Shakespeare wrote in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, “The course of true love never did run smooth.” And so it is with the ACCME’s Proposal for Simplifying and Evolving the Accreditation Requirements and Process.

Although many applaud the ACCME for taking a big step forward, and I am inclined to agree, I also want to point out that …

SIMPLIFIED ≠ SIMPLE

The ACCME proposed revisions do go a long way towards eliminating inconsistencies (like the ban on corporate logos) and items that lacked common sense (such as deleting criteria 4.)  But the items with which providers struggle, namely finding gaps and needs, the Standards for Commercial Support, program evaluation, and overall documentation, are still included.  The proposed activity file form does not eliminate the need to have activity data.

That being said, I do love the fact that the ACCME talked with over 1,000 providers through a series of Town Halls and focus groups, to obtain suggestions which went into these proposed changes.  Because the ACCME solicited feedback from all types of providers, from large organizations and small, from those who inhabit the  ivory tower and those down in the trenches, I feel more confident that that these proposed changes reflect the reality of medical education.

Because ultimately, we all agree that we need to marry the goals of compliance and improved patient care with the realities of every day medical education business.

To quote the Bard again, “Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind, And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind.” Having analyzed the ACCME proposed revisions, I’m even more excited to engage with the ACCME than I was before.

CME Tools for CME Providers: SCMEC March 2013

By

CME Tools for CME Providers

In the world of accredited CME, it is vital to share CME tools and tips with each other in order to elevate the profession.  This is one of the goals of the Southern California Medical Education Council (SCMEC), for which I serve as Secretary.

At the SCMEC March 2013 Quarterly Meeting, I presented some tools & take-aways gleaned from the Alliance for CEHP meeting.  Click here to view this presentation: SCMEC 3-12-13.

In addition to this presentation, we also heard from Darcy Mironov from the IMQ.  She discussed the ACCME Standards for Commercial Support, ACCME criteria 11-15, and common pitfalls that providers should try to avoid.  Although her presentation is not available for distribution yet, some of the topics she covered are included on this FAQ sheet.

You can learn more about SCMEC here.

You can learn more about the Alliance for CEHP here.

CME Consulting Best Practices

By

Best Practices for CME Consulting

There are a number of resources available that discuss best practices when working with a consultant.  The purpose of this article is to highlight some elements that may be  particularly relevant to medical education consulting.

When searching for a consultant to assist with CME accreditation or reaccreditation, conflict of interest management, or improvements for your medical education program, the following are a series of questions to ask yourself:

  1. How would I describe the primary feeling of a successful consulting relationship?  Collaborative? Supportive? Educational? Other?
  2. How often do I have time to connect with the consultant? Weekly, bi-weekly, monthly?
  3. How do I prefer to connect? Email, shared files, telephone, text messages?
  4. What are my priorities when working with the consultant? What are my deadlines?
  5. If the consultant will be asked to work with colleagues and/or physicians, how will I manage those interactions?
  6. Have I had experience working with consultants previously, and what did I learn that I can apply here?

Once you have a sense of your answers to these questions, you will be in a better position to select a consultant that matches your personality and expectations.

Optimizing Time with Consultant

Another way of saying this is, “get the most bang for your buck!”  Clearly communicating the goals of the interaction in advance of time scheduled with the consultant, whether a brief phone call or an all-day meeting, is essential. Although formal agendas are not always needed, a set of bullet points can ensure all of your questions are answered.

If you are working on a deadline to produce a document (such as a self-study for the ACCME or similar accreditor), determine with the consultant how you will stay on track. Timelines and task lists may be enough when there are only a few people involved or when one person is controlling the interaction with the consultant. Project management tools  may be useful when many people are contributing to the endeavor. Options include Excel, TeamGantt and Basecamp.

If you do not meet in person with the consultant, it may be useful to implement a file and/or screen sharing software to ensure you are both on the same page. Use of tools such as Box.com, Dropbox.com, Google docs, MeetingBurner and GotoMeeting can optimize your interactions and minimize email.

Personal Professional Development

One of the benefits of working with a consultant is the opportunity to talk with someone who speaks the same language and understands some of the challenges you face in maximizing your program’s effectiveness.  If you have your own personal continuing professional development goals, share them with the consultant who may be able to include aspects of your goals in the scope of  her work.  For example, if you want to further develop your ability to facilitate and guide the CME Committee, the consultant could model such skills during a planning meeting or coach you in advance of a meeting.

Keeping these points in mind will help to nurture a mutually beneficial connection between yourself and your CME consultant.

Value-Added CME – Part 1 in an ongoing series

By

(In this series, I discuss my personal experiences as a continuing medical education professional devoted to providing “Value-Added CME,” that is, medical education that is compliant with accreditation requirements, engages the learners, and ultimately leads to better care for all patients, including myself and my family.)

Value-Added CME – Our Identity in Crisis

Last week, when talking with someone totally unfamiliar with my profession, I was confronted with the ramifications of the recent negative publicity about Continuing Medical Education: he asked, “aren’t conferences for doctors just a place where they go to meet their girlfriends and get connected to the drug companies?”  Now, his comment was made a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it certainly points to the massive identity problem we are facing.

What publicity, you ask?  How about this article in the Atlantic about the Sunshine Act exemption of CME (nod to Derick Warnick, aka The CME Guy) in which the Atlantic quotes Ed Silverman as saying, “‘CME providers exist to facilitate the messages propagated by manufacturers … By deciding disclosure is not warranted, the administration is allowing a form of laundering to be sanctioned.'”

Another instance where professional misunderstanding comes into play: one of my hospital clients had to battle, I mean battle, with her legal department to get an honorarium check cut for a faculty presenter.  This expert was brought in to provide 5 hours of intensive training, developed specifically for the organization, which required many hours of preparation.  The CME Manager had followed the approved honorarium policy to the “t”.  But the legal department was worried that paying the honorarium might violate Stark laws (i.e. be perceived as kick-backs)!

Who is responsible for educating the world about our profession?  Anyone and everyone reading this!  In the instance of my client, the CME Manager, she wisely took this experience as an opportunity to call a meeting with the legal and accounting department to review the policies and procedures regarding CME.  Thomas Sullivan has been a loud advocate for CME during the  Sunshine Act saga, on his excellent website, www.policymed.com.  And in the instance of my (somewhat boorish) acquaintance, I straightened him out!