There were a number of events surrounding the Alliance for CME Annual Meeting. A few of them are worth recapping:

• Clarification on Inclusion of Chapter on Engagement with the Environment (Criteria 16-22) in Self Studies — One presenter at the annual meeting quoted from a letter by Dr. Kopelow that implied that all self studies submitted after the March 2010 cohort had to include the chapter on C16-22 regardless of whether the provider intended to qualify for a Level 3 accreditation. This was news to us! In a clarification letter from the ACCME, they indicated they would like providers to explain what they do with regards to the section on Engagement with the Environment, but it was not a mandated requirement. If resources are such that the provider has no intention of qualifying for Level 3 and time doesn’t permit the chapter to be written, it is not required.

• Report of an Academic Provider Being Investigated by the Senate Finance Committee Relating to COI — Despite evidence of content review and validation during the planning process for activities developed by a specific academic provider (funded by a major pharmaceutical company) the Senate Finance Committee, aided by an investigative reporter, began an investigation into this multiple intervention activity. All members of the advisory group assembled to oversee and direct the content of the project had COI with the source of funding. The content was also deemed controversial regarding the patient care recommendations included. So the issue of COI and whether it can be resolved by content review was questioned. Regardless of how this turns out, it is clear that the fundamental relationships of key physician content planners must be examined more closely. This issue, I’m afraid, will further play into the hands of those who are advocating that key planners have no promotional relationships with supporters or key manufacturers of products discussed in the activity for at least 12 months prior to the planning process. Due diligence in the area of identification and resolution of COI are imperative!

• General Confirmation of Declining Amounts of Commercial Support — It was certainly clear from hallway conversations as well as formal presentations by the pharmaceutical industry, that the overall amount of commercial support over the past year is down significantly from the previous year. Moreover, it also became crystal clear that those organizations that will receive grants going forward must demonstrate (1) a clear understanding of adult learning principles, skills and ability to conduct gap analyses and targeted outcomes measurements that can measure improvement in competence and/or performance and/or improvement in patient outcomes. We can’t emphasize enough how important it is to develop these skill sets as an integral part of every provider’s organization (and not just contract out for them).

  On a related note, we have discovered a week-long course on adult learning skills offered by Langevin Learning Services (www.langevin.com) for under $4,000 and another one-day seminar on adult learning. Check it out.
  

• ACCME Explains the Updated Criteria — Steve Singer, from the ACCME staff, offered an intensive symposium at the Alliance that, in our opinion, provided the most detailed information to date on the interpretation of the updated ACCME Criteria for Accreditation. This slide set is worth reviewing and can be accessed as follows: http://www.accme.org/dir_docs/doc_upload/ea6a2e4f-7804-4c11-9dd5-85924f7aa80e_uploaddocument.htm . It is consistent with our trainings and reinforces many of our definitions, such as gap analysis and educational outcomes measurements and their definitions and requirements. It also provides the context for the criteria concerning engagement with the environment.

Modifications keep happening to our model CME Planning Document, which we make available to you to use ‘as is’ or modify to fit your planning process. However, remember that CME planning today is, by definition, complex, so simplifying the document is not to your advantage particularly if you are seeking a Level 3 accreditation.

New to this version are the following:

• Enhancement for demonstrating compliance with Criterion 3—Designation of intended outcome is tied to each identified gap and a section to notate the rationale for the intended outcome is provided. This last section is a critical feature for the updated ACCME Criteria. What is your rationale for the decisions you made? PEARL: The checkboxes in this section should match what you say in your mission’s purpose statement.

• Cross-linked Physician Attributes chart. This allows you to demonstrate multiple competencies from the list that apply to your activity. Conversely, the list should spark ideas for development of content relating to these competencies.

• New section on selection of formats—This relates to Criterion 5 and, again, includes a place to record your rationale for the selection of formats designed to engage learners in their own education and reinforce and sustain educational goals.

• Outcomes Constructor—If you haven’t seen the planning document for a while, then this section is also new to you. The outcomes builder—based in part on materials supplied by Derek Dietze from ImproveCME—provides options for your planners to use in building outcomes measurements that relate to the designation of intended outcomes from above. Every CME activity today must measure for the outcome you designated in terms of improvements in competence and/or performance and/or patient outcomes.

• Sample Case Study—New Appendix C provides a sample case study for use in measuring improvement in competence that was developed for you by Judy Sweetnam.

The most updated version of the planning document may be downloaded at www.passinassociates.com/downloads/planningdocument.doc.