Back to Front PageVOLUME 6, NUMBER 4

Collaboration Key in Innovative CME Programs

By Jennifer Proctor

In Pennsylvania, four medical schools have combined their continuing medical education (CME) expertise to form a consortium that aims to strengthen educational programs throughout the state.

The schools - Jefferson Medical College, Pennsylvania State University, Temple University, and the University of Pittsburgh - are among a growing number of medical schools nationwide that are finding both internal and external collaboration to be critical components in quality CME programs.

"We recognized that we were all facing similar issues, which were difficult for a single medical school to address," says Barbara Barnes, M.D., associate dean for continuing education at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and former chair of the Consortium for Academic Continuing Medical Education (CACME). "As a common front, we could be more powerful and effective."

She explains that Pennsylvania's six medical schools began meeting informally in the early 1990s to discuss CME issues. After finding that they faced similar challenges, especially with accreditation, four of the schools formed CACME. The consortium began in 1997 as an Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) pilot project, which the ACCME proactively supported by appointing a liaison and adopting policies to accommodate it. When the pilot ended last year, the ACCME reaccredited the consortium.

As an accredited consortium, CACME ensures members are in at least minimal compliance with ACCME and other standards. It also fosters innovation and excellence in CME programs, Dr. Barnes says. For instance, CACME has helped to improve processes for grand rounds at all of the involved institutions by developing minimum documentation standards and identifying a variety of "best practices."

CACME can be a powerful voice within institutions as well. "We have more credibility when we explain that three other medical schools are facing the same difficult issues that we are," Dr. Barnes says. "We view the consortium as a potential national model," she adds. "The CACME members maintain their autonomy while getting all of the benefits of institutional collaboration."

At the Duke University School of Medicine, Joseph Green, Ph.D., associate dean for CME, is broadening the scope of his school's offerings to cover issues outside the traditional realm of CME. "We are looking at performance, quality, and outcomes data and using them as a trigger for putting together CME activities that will impact the quality and cost of care given by Duke physicians."

He says for CME programs to survive, they need to be more highly valued by institutions and, therefore, need to offer more relevant programming. To that end, Dr. Green shut down the school's long-standing CME committee, which met once a month to approve or reject CME proposals.

In its place, he put together a CME advisory board composed of 40 members from all different departments, and divided it into four subcommittees of 10 each. The first subcommittee, which addresses internal CME, aims to create programming that improves the performance of Duke physicians. The second subcommittee focuses on external CME - programs that disseminate research findings to the local physician community, the nation, and the world. The third subcommittee deals with educational processes and outcomes, while the fourth addresses marketing and finance.

"The advisory board allows us to work collaboratively with other parts of the institution," says Dr. Green, who also serves on various institutional committees to learn first-hand how CME can provide relevant programming. For example, from his tenure on the school's pharmacy and therapeutics committee, Dr. Green discovered that Duke needed a systematic method for credentialing physicians to prescribe specific highly toxic drugs. He volunteered the services of the CME office, which developed a one-hour activity followed by an exam. Based on the success of the program, the CME office also created an Internet credentialing program and exam.

At the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), collaboration is also a strong theme in CME programs. "Working in a partnership capacity with others who focus on physician education and research helps us enhance our ability to improve physician practice patterns," says Jan Temple, Ph.D., director of professional development at MUSC.

Like Dr. Green, Dr. Temple says that for CME offices to offer valuable programming, they must be involved in planning activities throughout their medical school. Members of the MUSC CME office serve on the school's Education Policy Council and Faculty Career Development Committee.

But Dr. Temple's collaborative efforts don't end on campus. She works closely with medical leaders throughout South Carolina in a partnership initiative that focuses on improving practice patterns statewide through CME. The group found that a need exists to determine the extent to which physicians use the Internet as a medical resource. Nationally, Dr. Temple has studied the role of CME with peer-reviewed organizations as well as how academic CME programs' interface with such organizations.

Above all, experts stress the need for CME offices to proactively join forces with colleagues both within their school and without to improve educational offerings. "CME offices need to be seen as valuable contributors by getting out there, coming up with the ideas of how we can help, and offering and providing that help," Dr. Green says.

---

AAMC Home | Government Affairs | Newsroom | Publications | Meetings | Students and Applicants | About the AAMC | Search | Site Map
Questions and Comments | © 1995-2004 AAMC Terms and Conditions | Privacy Statement

11 June 2001