Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

October 6, 2010

Time:

12 PM PDT/2 PM CDT/3 PM EDT

Please note: the conferencing service will ask you to enter the pound sign. Press # for pound.
To mute, press *6.

Attending: Toby Vandemark, Chair; Mary Pat Aust, James Fiore, Jeanette Harmon, Ed Kennedy, Deb Reis, Carl Singer, Valerie Smothers

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last meeting

The minutes were approved.

2 Discuss implementers page, mailing list, and inclusion on website

No one has posted to the implementers page yet. Valerie agreed to contact implementers to get them to post.

3 Discuss mechanisms for outreach to:

  • AAFP
  • ACCME
  • pharmacy
  • nursing (accreditors)
  • specialty organizations that support MoC
  • ABMS
  • larger member boards
  • American College of Surgeons

Valerie commented that in the professional profile Working Group, the chair had authored letters to organizations that he felt were key potential adopters. That letter generated a great deal of interest in the standard

Toby commented that she has contacts at ABMS and several of the larger member boards. She could call or email them. James commented that he has contacts with the American College of Surgeons and a group called SAGES.  They have accepted the idea of using the activity report profile, and work is in progress.

Valerie had contacted Sandra Selzer at the ABIM and recommended that ABIM consider using the Activity Report for collecting data related to approved external programs for part 4 of Maintenance of certification. James added that he has a meeting with with John Davis at ABIM, and he can bring up the topic with them. The boards don’t really exchange a lot of data with other boards, but they may in the future. Most of the time data goes to ABMS and that’s it. There are a few exceptions, such as co-hosted exams. ABIM runs hospice exams. They get registration data, nothing else.

Toby commented that it’s not so much about communicating with each other. Getting them to use it with societies is a bigger opportunity.

Ed commented that at ACCME they they don’t have plans to collect learner level data. They are still in the process of ramping up individual activity level data reported. With regards to the other accreditors, he offered to ask Kate Regnier to see if they are planning to do anything. Dimitra is still at ACPE. Mary Moon is in a different role at ANCC. Mary Pat offered to tell Valerie who is now in the role Mary Moon used to be in. They are ancc-acredited; they also have certification that plays a role in getting education credits to recertify. She doesn’t know that they are anywhere close to collecting learner level data for certified programs.

Ed asked if state boards would be collecting this data?

Mary Pat replied that in Florida, her hospital provides CNE. They had to report activities to a third party vendor, who would then report everything to the Florida board of nursing. Any activities from an approved provider would be automatically sent to the board. The same company is working with the dc board, too.

Toby asked iof there was a relation to the VA. They are constantly required to take training. Training records do not go anywhere. They need a way to get that information to one location. She will ask her husband.

4 Open discussion 

Decisions

  • Valerie will contact implementers to get them to post information about their implementations.
  • Toby agreed to contact ABMS, ABEM, and ABFP.
  • Valerie agreed to contact ACC and AAP.

Action Items

  • No labels