Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this document? Why not share!

Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) Annual Meeting

on

  • 704 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
704
Views on SlideShare
704
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) Annual Meeting Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) Annual Meeting Document Transcript

  • Nuclear Medicine Summer 2008 Society of Nuclear Medicine education and training competencies are (SNM) Annual Meeting aligned, and that goals and objectives for the program and for each rotation are sequenced in Darlene Metter, MD, RRC Chair and Missy ACGME competency format. Fleming, PhD, RRC Executive Director gave a presentation at the SNM Annual Meeting, Program directors are encouraged to invest which was held June 12-18, 2008 in New time and effort to produce a consistent, fully Orleans, LA. Their presentations are completed, and accurate PIF. available on the Nuclear Medicine webpage under Program Resources: “Red Flags” Help Programs http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/navPag Recognize Potential Issues es/nav_200.asp In the February 2008 issue of the ACGMe- Bulletin: Preparing for a Site Visit (http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/bulletin- To help ensure a successful site visit, e/e_bulletin02_08.pdf), an article entitled “Nine program directors are advised to prepare ‘Red Flags’ in Accreditation Site Visits and thoroughly. The ACGME Field Staff Reviews,” written by members of the ACGME recommend that program directors should Field Staff, provides observations that may be aware of changes in requirements and raise questions about program quality and the site visit process; the ACGME web site, compliance with program and institutional DIO News, ACGME Bulletin, and the requirements. This article may be of particular RRC/IRC Executive Director are good interest to programs preparing for upcoming resources for the most current information. site visits. Program directors should also ensure that an internal review occurs at the mid-point Internal Reviews between the last review and the next site The sponsoring institution is required to conduct visit date. an internal review of each residency program Further pre-planning for a site visit should under its purview at approximately the midpoint ensure that the program director, Chair, of the accreditation cycle (the time between the DIO, key faculty members, and peer- date of the most recent accreditation action and selected residents (as a group) are the next scheduled site visit). The institution available for interviews. Program directors assembles an internal review committee, which should plan appropriately for the site visitor must include at least one faculty member and at to review documents, tour the facility, and least one resident, who cannot be from the allow time for clarification and concluding program that is being reviewed. The process the session. Site visitors expect that the involves interviews with the program director, key faculty members, peer-selected residents ACGME — RRC News for Nuclear Medicine 1
  • from each level of training, and other reviewer book. The reviewer book is sent to the individuals, as appropriate. Frequently, it RRC members before the meeting so that RRC includes review of data, such as how the members may read all the reviews, and program has addressed the citations from compare the two reviews for each program. the last accreditation survey. After the RRC meeting, the ACGME staff The goal of the internal review is a thorough prepare the notification letters for the program and candid assessment that identifies the directors regarding the accreditation decisions program’s strengths and opportunities for reached by the RRC. Before these are posted improvement, and allows resolution of any on ADS, however, the chair of the RRC has to concerns or problems before the program’s review each communication and compare it next accreditation site visit. The with a worksheet generated during the RRC responsibility for timing and completion of meeting, make corrections as necessary, and the internal review lies with the sponsoring then certify the entire process by signature. institution. At the same time, program This process is designed to ensure that directors and residents should be familiar program citations and final accreditation with the process because they may be decisions reflect the intent of the RRC. asked to participate in future internal reviews. Due to the time required to complete this process, some site visits that occur in the Neither the site visitor nor the RRC reviewer month or so just before an RRC meeting will sees the data from the internal review, likely not be reviewed at that meeting. These which is not included with the program program reviews will probably be delayed until information form (PIF). Verification of the the next RRC meeting six months later. internal review during the site visit covers the date, the participants, and the review The RRC asks program directors to be mindful which is presented to the institution’s of this potentially lengthy interval between a site graduate medical education committee visit and the notification of a final accreditation (GMEC). In order to ensure an unbiased decision. assessment of program strengths and opportunities for improvement, site visitors ACGME Resident Survey verify that the internal review was Every two years, all programs with four or more completed in a timely manner, but they do residents complete the ACGME Resident not look at the results of the internal review. Survey. Results of this survey are made available to the program and the DIO for Program Review programs with a 70% or greater response rate. The RRC meets twice a year, usually in the Programs with less than 70% response rates spring and in the fall to review programs. are resurveyed the following year. These meetings are about six months apart. Before each meeting, two RRC members The Resident Survey is used by the site visitor are assigned to review each program. The to spotlight key areas of concern as well as paperwork is distributed over a two to three program strengths that the residents identified; month period prior to the RRC meeting, and the site visitor also uses the Resident Survey to RRC members are expected to complete help determine serious non-compliance with their reviews within 30 days of receiving a duty hour standards. Alternatively, compliance program. All reviews must be received in with duty hours, adequate supervision, and the ACGME office eight weeks prior to the limiting excessive service are noted as key meeting to allow incorporation into the factors that contribute to a high-quality learning ACGME — RRC News for Nuclear Medicine 2
  • environment for residents. The RRC has requested that site visitors provide more detailed information regarding “Program Director Guide to the the verification of negative comments made Common Program in the numerical or comment sections of the Requirements” Resident Survey, specifically, when the site To help clarify the meaning and expectations of visitor notes that a concern is “not an issue” the common program requirements, the or “could not be verified.” ACGME has developed the “Program Director Guide to the Common Program Requirements” Results of resident surveys can be used as which is available on www.acgme.org. The heuristic tools by program directors to guide has been very helpful to both new and improve the quality of residency education. experienced program directors. Please email National averages of resident surveys can comments and suggestions to: be viewed on the ACGME website Guide@acgme.org. www.acgme.org, within the ADS section, and should be reviewed by individual Accreditation Data System programs during annual and mid-cycle The ACGME’s online Accreditation Data internal reviews so that resident issues are System (ADS) alerts the RRC to changes in identified and addressed in a timely manner. programs. Program directors should update Program Evaluation by ADS to: Fellows: • Notify the RRC of any changes in their Keeping Responses Confidential When program (i.e., new program director or adding There is Only One Fellow or deleting a site) The ACGME requirement that fellows • Request a change which needs RRC provide confidential evaluations of their approval (i.e., an increase in resident program can be a challenge for programs complement). The request for a permanent with fewer than two fellows. Across increase in the resident complement must specialties, program directors have arrived include a copy of the institutional data for all at creative methods to maintain participating sites. Only one academic or one confidentiality. Fellow evaluations may be calendar year of data is necessary. collected over a period of a few years and grouped data can then be reported every • Submit the academic year “Annual Update” two to three years. The program director’s (ADS staff will e-mail the deadline for challenge is to balance the program’s need updating faculty and resident rosters) for feedback in order to make necessary • Prepare for an upcoming site visit (ADS will program improvements versus fellow populate many sections of the PIF with the confidentiality that can result in delays of data entered) valuable feedback. Alternatively, the program coordinator or DIO (not directly Send your questions or concerns to the ADS involved in fellow education), may solicit representative for Nuclear Medicine, Timothy feedback from the fellows and residents Goldberg at tgoldberg@acgme.org. who rotate on the service, and collate and report general findings to the program Description of a DIO director. DIO refers to your institution’s Designated Institutional Official. This individual has the ACGME — RRC News for Nuclear Medicine 3 View slide
  • authority and responsibility for all ACGME- are encouraged to apply to participate in the CI accredited GME programs. The DIO signs Pilot projects. For questions, contact Mary the PIF and also receives a copy of the Joyce Johnston in the Department of Field letter of notification that includes a Activities at 312/755-5013. program’s accreditation status. The DIO is required to co-sign most correspondence ACGME Learning Portfolio between the institution and the ACGME. A number of resources are available for programs that want to become more familiar Voluntary Withdrawal with the ACGME Learning Portfolio (ALP). Requests http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/portfolio/cbpa Programs must now enter requests to c_faq.pdf: The Frequently Asked Questions voluntarily withdraw accreditation (VW) (FAQs) (updated April 2008) include a using ADS only. description of the portfolio and its benefits to both residents and program directors, in Programs initiate the request by answering addition to common concerns about using an a series of questions, including the online portfolio system. An updated timeline for proposed effective date, the reason for development provides additional information on program closure, and presenting a plan to the alpha and beta testing phases. place any active residents in other http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/portfolio/cbpa programs. The request is emailed to the c_revisedtimeline.pdf. A narrated demonstration DIO for approval. After the DIO/GMEC of the portfolio can be found at approves the request, the RRC staff http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/portfolio/Alph designee is emailed. After the program aDemonstration.wmv. receives official notification from the RRC and the accreditation status is changed to More information is available on the ACGME VW, the request will automatically be Learning Portfolio website: removed from the report. http://www.acgme.org/acwebsite/portfolio/learn _cbpac.asp CI Pilot Projects The Committee on Innovation (CI) Innovation and Experimentation announced a set of duty hour and at the Program Level competency pilots in Fall 2007. Ingrid Philibert, PhD, Senior Vice President, Program directors may wish to implement an Department of Field Activities, quoted from innovative project. The Program the first formal report of the committee, Experimentation and Innovative Projects which was approved at the September Proposal Form 2007, meeting of the ACGME Board of (http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/navpages/Pr Directors: “The ultimate aim of these pilots ogramExperimentationInnovativeProjectsPropo is to test proposed revisions to the common salForm.doc) is located on the Nuclear duty hour standards and refinements to the Medicine website. The DIO must sign the approaches for teaching and assessing the proposal indicating review and approval of the general competencies to ensure they are sponsoring institution’s Graduate Medical based on valid and ‘actionable’ evidence of Education Committee. Proposals should not their effectiveness.” exceed five pages in length; attach additional documents as numbered appendices. More information regarding the pilot projects is available on the ACGME website under Innovation/CI. Nuclear Medicine programs ACGME — RRC News for Nuclear Medicine 4 View slide
  • ACGME Educational Norma R. de Yagcier Conference 2008 Recap Senior Accreditation Administrator nrdeyagcier@acgme.org Each year, the ACGME Annual Educational Conference provides a venue for graduate Becky Thielen medical educators to learn more about the Accreditation Assistant accreditation process and ways to enhance bthielen@acgme.org residency program quality related to ACGME initiatives, including general competencies, educational outcome assessment, and duty hours. This year's conference theme “Building Community, Improving Quality” emphasized how better education and better patient care can occur when individuals in diverse roles work together toward shared goals. Post-conference information is available at: http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/meetings/ me_EducConf_08.asp Save the date for the 2009 ACGME Annual Educational Conference, March 5-8, in Grapevine, TX. RRC Meeting and Agenda Closing Date Meeting: Nov 14, 2008 Agenda Closing: Oct 3, 2008 Meeting: May 2, 2009 Agenda Closing: Apr 4, 2008 Review Committee Members Joanna R. Fair, MD, PhD, Resident Leonie Gordon, MD, Vice-Chair Darlene Metter, MD, Chair Christopher Palestro, MD J. Anthony Parker, MD Harvey Ziessman, MD RRC Staff Missy Fleming, PhD Executive Director mfleming@acgme.org ACGME — RRC News for Nuclear Medicine 5