The ACCME does believe that an enhanced research enterprise can help ACCME meet its mission – but we are not sure that any of us know if the tactical choice of an independent institute is the correct choice.
This was the sentiment of the statement shared by Murray Kopelow, MD Executive Director of the ACCME with the Institute of Medicine Committee on Planning a Continuing Health Care Professional Education Institute.
Other Key Points of the ACCME Statement are:
Ways CE can be strengthened to support professionals performance:
Through the construct of ACCME CME/CPD in the United States – which is based on a published model (Regnier, K, et al 2005) that places continuing education in support of the continuing professional development of individual or groups of professionals
Through enhancements to the scope and nature of the Accredited CME Enterprise. Accredited CME is only a portion of all the ‘learning’ events that professional participate in to maintain their abilities, but it is substantial.
In 2007 there were,
• About 11 million physician and about 6 million non physician registrants
• Over 160,000 ‘Activities’
• Over 1 million hours of engagement with learners.
Revenue to CME surpassed $2.5 Billion in 2007. Accredited CME was available to physicians and non physicians in all 50 states and territories.
By ensuring a broader understanding that the effectiveness of accredited CME has, in fact, already been established.
By facilitating a broader understanding and implementation of the current ACCME accreditation expectations.
The ACCME also expressed some concerns regarding CE and the IOM’s study:
The ACCME is concerned [with respect to a continuing professional education institute] that continuing professional education is treated differently than other aspects of education and medicine with respect to research and discovery.
The ACCME perceives a lack of urgency, or sense of value, within medical education for “developing a research enterprise that encourages increased scientific study of CE.”
Dr. Kopelow goes on to make the sound economic argument that Professionals in the nongovernmental academic institutions, from researcher to Dean and
Director, are highly rewarded and compensated financially and professionally for successes in research on health and disease. Relatively speaking, very few in this system are rewarded for the ‘scientific study of CE.’
Other organizations gave testimony at the meeting including the North American Association of Medical Education and Communication Companies (NAAMECC).
In Eric Campbell’s at Harvard Institute of Health Policy (IHP), he outlined that: The amount and types of support will depend of the effectiveness of CE (smaller amounts of more effective CME might substitute for a wasteful commercially supported enterprise).
Mr. Campbell has clearly decided in advance of his “research” that commercially supported CE is wasteful, perhaps he should share that with the hospitals who depend on CE funding to provide some level of education for their doctors.
He also spoke with surety that once his study is done it will be published in a major medical journal such as Journal of American Medical Association or New England Journal of Medicine. (Perhaps the participation of Katherine DeAngelis, MD editor of JAMA on the committee will help).
The IOM Committee Meeting took place under the watchful eye of the Josiah Macy Foundation which is funding this effort (~$428,000) by the IOM along with coordinated initiatives by the AAMC (~$300,000) and Harvard Institute of Health Policy (~$150,000).
For links to the Presentations, Agenda and Bios:
Institute of Medicine: Committee on Planning a Continuing Health Care Professional Education Institute
ACCME: Testimony to the IOM
NAAMECC: Testimony to the IOM