Vivacity Consulting

Bringing energy and experience to your CME activity

ACCME’s Criterion 6: How We Made This Useful

By

ACCME’s Criterion 6: Not all Criteria Are Made the Same

It’s true. All of the criteria are important, but some are MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS. Right? We all know this. Identifying gaps and needs is very important. Ensuring independence from commercial interests is very important. Criterion 6 is not at the top of the totem pole of importance.

However, one of my clients, SAGES, has embraced Criterion 6 in a pretty neat way to make it useful in the planning process (see below). Every year, each session of the Annual Meeting is linked to one or more “Physician Competencies.” We track this and then highlight for the next year’s Program Committee areas which may have been under-emphasized in previous years. Not all competencies are relevant to this large specialty societies’ annual meeting – but some are.

In this way, lowly Criterion 6 becomes not just required for compliance, but also provides insight into the CME program and therefore IT’S ACTUALLY HELPFUL! Which, of course, is the ultimate goal of the CME process.

Criterion 6

Example of ACCME’s Criterion 6 Used in Planning

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!

Commercial Support & CME Training Announced

By

ACCME’s Standards for Commercial Support: Medical Association of Georgia and Vivacity Consulting Training

This training will be offered to State Providers in Georgia only.

Every year, the ACCME and Medical Association of Georgia report that many providers have trouble with Accreditation Criteria 7-10 Criterion 7 regarding the Standards for Commercial Support (SCS) – specifically SCS 2 and SCS6. In addition, as programs change and new activities are created, questions regarding the SCS sometimes arise. This webinar will provide an overview of the SCS, review common misconceptions and rumors, and discuss suggestions for implementing the SCS into your organization. We promise, this will not be Death by Webinar – we will incorporate polls and other interactivity into the training.

Tips and Tools for Ensuring Conflict-Free CME
June 5, 2013
2:00 pm EST

At the conclusion of this activity, the participant will be able to
– Identify areas of potential non-compliance within his/her organization and
– Utilize best practices/pearls in fulfilling ACCME/MAG Standards within his/her organization

Contact MAG  for additional information.

Vivacity Consulting is available to offer similar training to staff or volunteers at hospitals, medical schools, specialty societies, education companies, etc.  Please contact us.

CME Conflict of Interest FAQs

By

Ensuring Conflict-Free CME

Recently, Good Samaritan Hospital (GSH) collaborated with Vivacity Consulting to develop a FAQ sheet regarding brand names, devices, commercial interests and certified CME.  The questions on the FAQ sheet resulted from CME conflict of interest queries by Course Directors, faculty and others.

(Please note: all GSH activities are subjected to GSH policies and procedures governing conflict of interest identification and resolution. This FAQ sheet is designed as an additional education tool to reinforce existing protocols.)

CME Conflict of Interest FAQs

 

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!