Life Science Compliance Update

April 26, 2017

AMA and ACCME Announce Call for Comment on Proposal

Pic1594305

Yesterday, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) issued a call for comment on their joint proposal to simplify and align their expectations for accredited continuing medical education (CME) activities that offer the AMA PRA Category One CreditTM. The proposal for alignment attempts to encourage innovation and flexibility in accredited CME, while continuing to ensure that activities meet educational standards and are independent of commercial influence.

The proposal is aimed at allowing accredited CME providers to introduce and blend new instructional practices and learning formats that are appropriate to their learners and the setting, provided that they abide by the seven core requirements found within the proposal. Those seven core requirements are aligned with ACCME requirements and do not represent any new rules for accredited providers. Found in the proposal, the AMA simplified and reduced its learning format requirements to provide more flexibility for CME providers.

Under the proposal, CME providers may design and deliver an activity that uses blended or new approaches to driving meaningful learning and change. For these activities, the provider can designate credits on an hour-per-credit basis using their best reasonable estimate of the time required to complete the activity.

Graham McMahon, MD, MMSc, President and CEO of ACCME, noted,

We celebrate this collaborative effort with our AMA colleagues and the opportunity to advance the evolution of CME. This proposal reflects the values of our CME providers and supports their aspirations to engage in education that makes a meaningful difference in clinician practice and patient care. We want to do everything we can to encourage innovation and experimentation in CME, so that educators are free to respond nimbly to their learners’ changing needs while staying true to core principles for educational excellence and independence. We thank accredited CME providers for their participation in this process and look forward to their feedback on our proposal and to our continued work together to drive quality in postgraduate medical education and improve care for the patients and communities we all serve.

Susan Skochelak, MD, AMA Group Vice President for Medical Education, was also pleased with the proposal, stating,

Based on the feedback we received from the CME community during listening sessions, we recognize the need to better align the AMA and ACCME’s requirements for CME accreditation and reaccreditation. We believe that our proposal will support the evolution of CME to better meet the needs of educators, physicians, and the patients they serve. We want to hear from the CME community to make sure the proposal addresses their feedback. We encourage CME providers to submit their comments to the proposal so we can continue to evolve to a more streamlined system that meets their needs. 

Following the call for comment period, the AMA and ACCME will analyze the feedback and determine whether to make modifications to the proposal and glossary. Once finalized, the resulting new process will be integrated into the existing accreditation and reaccreditation processes.

If any of our readers wish to comment on the proposal, you may do so here. Comments will be accepted through Thursday, May 25, 2017, at 5:00 pm CST. If you are unable to meet that deadline, but wish to provide constructive comments, email info@accme.org to request an extension.

April 03, 2017

ACCME President and CEO Calls for Healthcare Leaders to Leverage CME

Graham%20T_%20McMahon_photo

Graham McMahon, MD, MMSc, President and CEO of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), recently published an article in Academic Medicine, “The Leadership Case for Investing in Continuing Professional Development.”

In his article, Dr. McMahon calls upon healthcare leaders to recognize and appreciate the power and capacity of accredited CME to address many of the challenges in the healthcare environment, from clinician well-being to national imperatives for better health, better care, and lower costs. McMahon also offers principles and action steps for aligning leadership and educational strategy, while urging institutional leaders to embrace the continuing professional development of their human capital as an organizational responsibility and opportunity.

McMahon opines that CME is “an underused and low cost solution that can improve clinical performance, nurture effective collaborative teams, create meaning at work, and reduce burnout.” He believes that to optimize CME benefits, clinical leaders need to think of CME as a way to help drive change and achieve institutional goals, in concert with quality improvement efforts, patient safety, and other systems changes.

McMahon notes, “The perception of CME as only lectures in dark rooms or grand rounds with dwindling numbers of participants listening passively to an expert is increasingly anachronistic. Equally outdated is the view that CME is about rubber-stamping applications for credit. The end point of CME is not the credit that’s attained for licensing, certification, or credentials; rather, it is learning.”

A CME program that is properly utilized – with a multi-professional scope and educational expertise – can contribute to initiatives that focus on clinical and nonclinical areas alike. Some such initiatives can include quality and safety, professionalism, team communication, and process improvements. By supporting the achievement of quality and safety goals and engaging in public health priorities, CME programs can help organizations reach various strategic goals and demonstrate leadership.

He further argued that to “reap the greatest return on your institution’s investment in education, you will need to build a collaborative learning culture. We acculturate clinicians to be decisive and confident, but patient safety is compromised when confidence is not matched by ability. Promoting self-awareness as part of your institution’s culture is key to improving patient care and safety because it allows clinicians to stop if they are unsure, seek advice from a colleague or access resources, and ensure they are making the right decision at the right time.”

Additionally, “[b]reaking down silos among professions and throughout the medical education continuum, including the involvement of undergraduate and graduate medical education leadership, improves efficiency and the allocation of resources across an institution’s educational programs. An integrated learning environment that enables health care professionals, residents, and students to share conferencing space, learning management systems, and other resources will help drive team development.”

In conclusion, Dr. McMahon notes, “Healthcare leaders who recognize the strategic value of education can expect a meaningful return on their investment – not only in terms of the quality and safety of their clinicians’ work but also in the spirit and cohesiveness of the clinicians who work at the institution.”

March 02, 2017

CME Outcomes Increase with Local Participation in Content

CME Conference

Teams from Rockpointe and Potomac Center for Medical Education worked together to draft an article recently published in the Alliance Almanac, walking readers through the outcomes-based activity design. Throughout the article, readers learn how they structured their ground rounds courses and the modifications needed to address different audiences. They also illustrate how relying upon expert opinions during a needs assessment could create a disconnect between the content and learners’ true needs.

The article focused on “Type 2 Diabetes Management: A Team Approach to Managing Hypoglycemia, Comorbidities, and Patient Challenges,” a one-hour grand rounds activity series held in community hospitals. The activity was designed to educate clinicians on patient-engagement strategies and guideline-based management of T2DM (type 2 diabetes mellitus), specifically in patients with comorbidities or at a high risk for hypoglycemia. The CME activity was held in thirty hospitals in nineteen different states, over the course of seven months from 2014 to 2015.

According to the article, the most effective strategies for educational design contain a multidimensional approach. As such,  

[t]he content for the series was entirely case-based and tailored to the needs of each hosting venue.

The curriculum included six patient case scenarios, with two cases per learning objective. Each host site selected one of the cases per learning objective (three cases total) at the recommendation of the institution’s department chair or clinicians.

The outcomes methodology relies on assessment of responses to a series of case-vignette questions from a sample of HCPs who participated in the CME activity (participants) as compared to responses from a comparable, demographically matched group of HCPs who did not receive the education (nonparticipants).

Comparing the differences in response patterns between the participant and nonparticipant groups allowed for assessment of the following:

  • whether the therapeutic choices of participants were consistent with the clinical evidence;
  • whether practice choices of participants were different from those of nonparticipants;
  • what barriers exist to the optimal management of T2DM; and
  • which educational needs remain.

According to the article, sixty-five percent of responding participants “indicated that they always or frequently evaluated the risk of hypoglycemia in their patients with T2DM and adjusted management as necessary to avoid hypoglycemic episodes. The education was perceived as very impactful to the participants, successfully addressing their practice needs.”

Additionally, compared to nonparticipants, the activity favorably impacted the clinical decision making of the participants. Participants were more likely to account for the cardiovascular impact of glucose-lowering agents, as well as their effects on weight, their hypoglycemia risk and their contraindications when recommending treatment in a variety of patient scenarios.

The article concluded with the following:

Participation in an interactive, case-based grand rounds activity was associated with increased HCP knowledge and competence in the management of T2DM. It was also associated with a 51 percent increased likelihood that patients would receive evidence-based care from participating physicians, specifically in the context of comorbidities, renal impairment, cardiovascular risk and the need to limit weight gain. Participation in the grand rounds series has the potential to improve T2DM patient care during 92,196 patient visits each month to participating clinicians.

Newsletter


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Search


 
Sponsors
April 2017
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30