ACCP Releases New CME Guidelines

In the March 2009 issue of The American College of Chest Physician’s (ACCP) journal Chest, ACCP introduced the first evidence-based guideline that evaluates the effectiveness of current continuing medical education (CME) practices and provide recommendations on how practices need to change in the future. View the guideline and recommendations online at www.chestjournal.org

The CME Center contacted ACCP, asking how the guidelines were developed and how the ACCP membership as well as the general public have reacted.

Answers from Lisa K. Moores, MD, FCCP, Co-Chair of CME Guidelines Panel and Ed Dellert, RN, MBA, Vice President of Educational Resources at ACCP appear below.

What was the major impetus for creating these guidelines? Was this a reaction to anything specific or did it just naturally rise to the top of your strategic priorities?

In 2005, the ACCP’s Medical Education committee and the Health and Science Policy committee recognized the need to assess its medical education curriculum. During this assessment process, a proposal was made to evaluate the literature to determine what CME tools and techniques are most effective in improving our physician members’ knowledge and skills. It quickly became clear that there was much more to be learned from this effort and that its potential impact could benefit not only the ACCP membership but also the medical education community as a whole. Thus, the ACCP proposed and obtained acceptance from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to identify and synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of CME. Johns Hopkins University and ACCP used this literature review and expanded upon it for the development of this guideline.

What was the process for the creation of these guidelines? Were there any parts of the process that were challenging? Are there any specific tips you would give to other medical societies who are interested in creating something like this?

The purpose of this evidence-based guideline, based upon the Johns Hopkins systematic literature review, is to make recommendations to assist ACCP members, the ACCP Education Committee, and any others involved in CME to further the effectiveness of their CME programs. Although the level of evidence was generally of low quality, certain recommendations could be derived substantiating what is currently being conducted by CME providers. In addition, suggestions for further investigation and research were synthesized by the panel. During the Johns Hopkins’ literature review, a primary limitation became obvious: the differences in terminology used in CME activities and in conducting CME research. Examples of terminology variation include the terms used to define the educational interventions applied, the different target audiences, the multiple types of learning objectives, the diverse content areas, and the numerous educational teaching methodologies. This variation has led to a lack of standardized CME approaches and CME research including CME research controls. This clearly makes comparison difficult and quantitative syntheses impossible.

How do you think these guidelines will affect your CME programs? Have these recommendations been adopted by your CME committee yet, or are they planning to?

The guideline writing panel noted that a primary limitation in the literature review was the absence of or little formalized training in CME to date-- for both individual teachers and professional societies providing educational programs. Educational skills and knowledge needed by CME providers is not extensively reviewed in the literature.
Very few studies indicated or outlined the training needs necessary for CME providers. Going forward, this must be addressed. The ACCP has already begun this process by creating and implementing an educational curriculum that guides the development of all of our educational programs. In addition, the ACCP has created a 6-learning categorical system that correlates with its educational curriculum is used not only in the development of its individual activities but also is reflected in its CME certificate process as one of the end products that the physician learner can receive.

What has been the reaction you have received from your membership?

Too early to tell as far as the guideline is concerned. We anticipate feedback over the next few months to be coming in from ACCP membership and the CME community at large.

From the literature review, what was the main take-away you want executives to walk away with?

There are 7 areas that we would highlight from this guideline that executives will need to work with their education leadership toward developing:

1. Instructional techniques: That a CME program should use CME interventions with multiple instructional techniques in preference to a single technique to improve physician knowledge
2. Frequency of exposure: CME programs should use multiple exposures (sessions) to CME content in preference to a single exposure be used to improve physician knowledge.
3. CME programs should not just use AMA’s definition of CME and the terms articulated in this guideline (or their modifications) should be integrated consistently by CME practitioners and researchers as they develop CME programs and study the educational and patient outcomes of CME interventions.
4. Widespread dissemination, elaboration and clarification of the terms in this document is needed. They should be used by journal editors, specialty and professional societies and by the research community so future evidence reviews can reflect a common language and make future comparisons easier.
5. CME professionals and researchers need to explicitly consider the inclusion and documentation of teaching and learning principles in the design and implementation of further trials of CME. In addition, we suggest that, whenever possible, trials be designed to study the educational outcomes of such variables.
6. When studies of CME interventions are performed, that special attention to full descriptions of elements expressed in the Continuing Healthcare Education Study and Systematic Review Template (CHESST) be incorporated (highlighted in document).
7. We highly suggest that leaders in medical education and related fields foster (i) the identification of high priority research topics in CME research that would span the broad scope of CME and (ii) conduct scientifically rigorous studies of the process and effectiveness of CME that demonstrates the effect of CME programs on individual and collective physician learners who participate in these programs.

We thank Dr. Moores and Mr. Dellert for taking the time to prepare these answers, and we would also like to acknowledge the work of ACCP’s Senior Manager for Public Relations, Jennifer Stawarz, in facilitating this conversation.

And please let us know your opinion on the guidelines and the work of the ACCP in the comments section below.

What a Difference a Year Makes

Not surprisingly, the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affair’s (CEJA) Report on Industry Support of Professional Education in Medicine, prompted strong and varied reactions, when they circulated a draft last year. (To read AAMSE’s official reaction to the CEJA Report click here). Some responders aimed their heaviest criticism at the process CEJA used - it afforded little time for meaningful input before CEJA submitted it to the AMA’s House of Delegates for review. (At the end of the day, the report died a quiet death on the delegate floor.)

The issue of industry support for professional education in medicine is as relevant today as it was last year – if not more so. So, CEJA is again drafting a report for this year’s AMA’s House of Delegates Annual Meeting. The good news is it looks like CEJA listened to the complaints! CEJA, along with the AMA’s Council on Medical Education, reached out to the CME community early in the process by inviting key stakeholders to a facilitated discussion in late February. Kudos go to Regina M. Benjamin, MD, MBA and Claudette C. Dalton, MD, chairs respectively of CEJA and the Council on Medical Education, for making sure that, this year, stakeholders had time to consider the issues and provide input.

Invited stakeholders included the ACCME, the Alliance for CME, AAMSE, CMSS, PHARMa, and various medical societies, among others. Each organization’s representative was asked to share responses to the following questions:

1. When is conflicted expertise essential in CME? How can we tell when it is no longer needed?
2. What unique challenges do you as a stakeholder face regarding CME?
3. How can we ensure that medicine sets the agenda for CME overall so that it meets the needs of patients and physicians rather than the interest of commercial support?
   

How would you answer these questions? Leave your responses in the comments section below.

And check back later, when Shelly Rodrigues, AAMSE’s representative to this meeting and chair of the Medical Education Leadership Forum will share AAMSE’s response and her meeting take-aways.

Massachusetts Gift Ban Rules Approved

Massachusetts officials gave final approval for the rules banning pharmaceuticals and medical device manufacturers from providing gifts and other perks to physicians.

For the complete story click here

To read the complete rules, click here

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2009: Better or worse than the 2008 bill?

Medical society executives and presidents are wondering how the recently introduced bill, S. 301: Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2009, would impact their physician members.

Introduced on January 22, 2009, by Senators Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) and Herb Kohl (D-WI) the Sunshine Act would require pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to report a wide range of payments or other transfers of value to physicians and physician-owned entities to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Grassley and Kohl drafted a similar bill introduced in 2007 and modified by the House in 2008 but never acted on by Congress.

Comparisons between 2008 & 2009

Direct CME payments must be reported
Under the 2007 and 2008 versions, manufacturers were required to report payments made to physicians for “participation in a medical conference, continuing medical education, or other educational or informational program or seminar.” In other words indirect payments were included – payments made by medical societies, for example, using manufacturers’ sponsorship support. The 2009 bill omits this requirement and instead calls for a direct payment reporting system. It reads:

“In the case where an applicable manufacturer provides a payment or other transfer of value to an entity or individual at the request or designated on behalf of a covered recipient, the applicable manufacturer shall disclose that payment or other transfer of value under the name of the covered recipient.”

While it isn’t clear how HHS would interpret and formulate a rule based on this section of the bill, on first blush it looks as if manufacturers will not need to report medical education sponsorships paid to medical societies. But, payments made from the manufacturer directly to a physician for “…serving as a faculty member or as a speaker for a continuing medical education program” must be reported.

Reporting threshold changed – to $100

Cumulative payments valued at $100 or more must be reported. The 2007 bill originally called for reporting of payments as low as $25, an amount later raised, in 2008, to $500. The bill’s definition of payments or transfers of value encompasses 14 items but allows the HHS Secretary to define more.

Stricter state laws would apply

The 2009 bill preempts state sunshine laws except those where requirements are stricter.

What do you think?

American Academy of Family Physician President Ted Epperly, MD, welcomes transparency and agrees with the overall intent of the bill but worries that it “…could discourage physicians from participating in CME.” He considers this version overly onerous, saddling physicians with an inordinate amount of paperwork. Epperly wants a return to the 2008 version, which he considered the “right thing to do” but less restrictive.

Tell us what you think!

For additional information & commentary:

• Text of bill
• Track the bill
• Policy and Medicine: Physician Payment Sunshine Act 2009 Introduced
• AdvaMed Statement on Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2009
• AAFP Expresses Concerns About Revised Physician Sunshine Act
• Statement of NLARx Director Sharon Treat on the "Physician Payments Sunshine Act"
• Statement from The Prescription Project, regarding the revised Physician Payments Sunshine Act
  

Serving the Public Interest – by Resolving Conflicts of Interest

For CME providers who enjoy developing procedures that address crucial requirements, complying with the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME)’s standard 2.3, could be a pleasure. The standard – designed to ensure the independence of CME activities from commercial interest – invites rigor and creativity. It requires the provider to “…have implemented a mechanism to identify and resolve all conflicts of interest prior to the educational activity being delivered to learners.” Because this standard is critically important and has engendered myriad approaches – according to provider – it represents a good starting point for CME Center discussions.

First step is identifying a conflict of interest. (A little more difficult than just knowing it when you see it.) When CME planners, faculty, managers, staff, authors, and reviewers report a financial relationship with a commercial interest – and the provider must require all persons involved with CME to report such relationships – the provider then determines whether the individual also has the opportunity to “affect the content of CME about the products or services of that commercial interest.” Also is key, here. A conflict of interest exists when the individual who reported the relationship also has the aforementioned opportunity. In short, financial relationship plus opportunity to affect content equals a conflict of interest, and a conflict of interest requires resolution.

Note, too, that the current ACCME standards call for disclosure of financial relationships with any commercial interest whereas the earlier standard used the term commercial entity. Interest conveys a broader, more encompassing concept than entity.

To learn more about resolution mechanisms, or how-to’s, as well as the philosophy behind the requirement, read the piece by Shelly Rodrigues, CAE, Chair of the Advisory Council for the Medical Education Leadership Forum and Deputy Executive Vice President of the California Academy of Family Physicians. Then tell us what you think and what you do!

Sidebar:
Check out a “Conflict of Interest Flow Chart for Continuing Medical Education Sessions” developed by the CME Leadership Forum located in the CME Resource Center.