Oops, extra “have” in there. In all honesty, though, this Town Hall was miles better than the first one the ACCME attempted a couple years ago. All in all, I thought it went pretty well with no major technical glitches.
Honored to be called out by Dr. Kopelow for tweeting the Town Hall. I’ll do my best to keep everything in context… #accmeTH
OK, that was unexpected. There I am, the lone tweeter for the meeting (sadly, no second tweeters lurking in the grassy knoll), when Dr. Kopelow announces to everyone “I understand that Derek Warnick is live tweeting this meeting…” and goes on to talk about his hope that any tweets about what is said are put in proper context, etc, etc. Fair enough. Thats always my goal anyway. Still, felt a little awkward getting singled out by name like that. I guess that’s the price of fame <rolls eyes>.
Would be great if ACCME joined me in live tweeting sometime to help with context/perspective/etc #accmeTH
In my opinion, the best way to assure that tweets about your content are put in proper context is to provide tweets for participants to respond to. I acknowledge that that might seem like a waste of time when it’s only little ol’ me doing the tweeting all alone…
Mark Levine from CMS
Up first: Mark Levine, CMO, Denver from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Sevices #accmeTH
I’ll explain. Dr. Kopelow used the following as an example of one way to measure change:
Ask your audience to raise their hand if they will make a change in their practice based on what they learn.
80% raise their hand. Thats a measure.
Now ask an individual what specifically they will change. That’s another measure
Ask the audience to raise their hand if they will change the same change in their practice as that individual. That’s another measure.
And so on.
This is acceptable measurement of outcomes for the ACCME and for your files (as long as you document it, of course). Now, how do you think it would fly if you submitted a grant request and in your proposal, you outlined the process above as your method for measuring outcomes? Maybe it would be perfectly fine. I have my doubts though…
Q: What mechanisms do providers use to ascertain that standards are being followed in joint sponsorship? #accmeTH
I’ve had many positive experiences working with joint sponsors. If your partners are causing you problems, don’t partner with them. There are plenty of others out there who do. I know, I know…easy for me to say. The unspoken issue here is $$$. I get it. Still, at some point the headaches aren’t worth the accreditation fee.
MK: most of orgs who have dropped accreditation are small orgs w/ 1-2 meetings a year. Not cost effective, JS better. MK agrees. #accmeTH
First, let me say that I was happy to hear Dr. Kopelow say that the ACCME supports engagement in social media by their providers. That’s definitely a step in the right direction. However, I disagree with two other points that were made.
1) I think it’s a mistake to assume that the primary target audience for the use of social media in their profession are currently high school and college aged kids. I know plenty of people that age who couldn’t care less about Facebook or Twitter, just as I know plenty of people in their 40’s and 50’s who use those platforms every single day. These tools are being used by professionals in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, etc RIGHT NOW. Will that audience grow as the Millennials age? Yeah, probably. But we don’t need to wait for that.
2) I DO think their is a way for the ACCME to use social media (of course). Here is the link to the blog post I mentioned in my tweet above:
This was a key learning nugget for me from this meeting. It was something new that I learned and was obvious from the reaction of the other participants that it was new to them, too. It is something that I think is valuable info that CME professionals from all provider types would like to know. So, what is the best channel for the ACCME to distribute this bit of information? Send out a mass email? Maybe, but I’m not sure it’s so important that an email needs to be sent to everyone on the ACCME’s mailing list. That would get annoying after awhile. But, if the ACCME had a Linkedin page or a Facebook page, it would be an easy process for them to write a quick update to let people know about this piece of information.
My exact question was whether the ACCME considers COI for their surveyors, particularly in the context of restricting surveyors from surveying organizations from the same provider type as their own organization. Dr. Kopelows response was that the ACCME certainly considers COI of their surveyors in terms of previous business relationships, etc, but they do not restrict them from surveying certain provider types. In fact, they prefer surveyors from similar provider types as the organizations being surveyed, since they might have a better understanding of how they’re run, their processes, etc.
ACCME does have monitoring in place for COI of business relationships, etc of surveyors, but not for like provider types #accmeTH