Accreditation 101- Understanding the Basics Authors: George Fox and Mya Warken Date: September 20, 2012

8/17/ Conflict of Interest George Fox Within the past 5 years, I have received honoraria (speaker, advisory board) and/or research support from the following pharmaceutical companies: –Actelion –Astra-Zeneca –Boehringer Ingelheim –Glaxo Smith Kline –InterMune –Nycomed Mya Warken –I have no conflicts of interest to disclose

Introductions George Fox –Chair, Royal College CPD Accreditation Committee Mya Warken –Senior CPD Accreditation Specialist 8/17/2015 3

4 Learning Objectives By the end of this session participants will be able to: Explain the criteria established to determine if the developing organization meets the definition of a physician organization; Discuss the minimally acceptable educational and ethical standards all programs must meet to be approved as an accredited group learning activity (Section 1); Identify at least one area for improvement to the review process for their organization.

What are you looking for? 8/17/2015 5

The Maintenance of Certification Program SectionDetails Section 1-Accredited Group Learning Activities Accredited rounds, journal clubs, small group learning Accredited conferences, workshops, seminars (face-to-face and web based) Section 2: Self-learning Planned Learning Scanning Systems Learning Section 3: Assessment Knowledge Assessment (Accredited Self- Assessment Programs) Performance Assessment (Accredited Simulation Activities) 8/17/2015 6

Accredited CPD Providers  31 National Specialty Societies  17 Canadian University Offices of Continuing Medical Education (CME)  3 Accredited Simulation Programs  Limited Providers:  Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec  Leadership and Professional Development within the Canadian Medical Association  The Canadian Medical Protective Association “...you are not alone!” 8/17/2015 7

Accredited CPD Providers – Your role  Accredited CPD Providers review programs that have been developed by physician organizations, or are co-developed with non-physician organizations:  activities that meet the standards for group learning under Section 1; includes conferences, courses, and workshops  self-assessment activities under Section 3; includes knowledge and performance assessment (self-assessment programs or simulation based assessment) 8/17/2015 8

Reviewing an Application for Section 1  Application submitted by the physician organization and signed by the Chair of the planning committee  Attachments: –Needs Assessment results –Detailed Program/Course Schedule (including sponsorship recognition) –Evaluation Form/Tool –Budget –Documentation re: Ethical Standards  Others? 8/17/2015 9

Reviewing an Application for Section 1  Application submitted by the physician organization and signed by the Chair of the planning committee  Attachments: –Needs Assessment results –Detailed Program/Course Schedule (including sponsorship recognition) –Evaluation Form/Tool –Budget –Documentation re: Ethical Standards  Others? 8/17/ Who Can Review an Application for Section 1  Accredited Providers What is the Basis of the Accreditation Process hnn.m n  A structure and process which enables the same criteria as for Section 1 review (+)  Standard Operating Procedures to support the structure and process – Policies – Procedures – Documentation, Records  Administrative structure and resources to support the SOPs Who Can Review an Application for Section 1 What is the Basis of the Application to be an Accredited CPD Provider

Reviewing an Application for Section 1 Section 1 Requirements:  Part A: Administrative Standards (physician organization)  Part B: Educational Standards  Part C: Ethical Standards 8/17/

Part A– Physician Organization A not-for-profit group of health professionals with a formal governance structure, accountable to and serving, among others, its specialist physician members through: * Continuing professional development; * Provision of health care; and/or * Research 8/17/

Exercise and Discussion 8/17/ Using the definition provided, review the organization examples to determine if they meet the Royal College definition of “physician organization”.

Part B: Section 1-Mandatory Educational Standards 1.Program planned to address the needs of the target audience 2.Learning objectives communicated to audience 3.A least 25% interactive learning time 4.Evaluation of: –learning objectives –learning outcomes 8/17/

Addressing needs 1.Program planned to address the needs of the target audience –The target audience is clearly identified; –The planning committee is representative of the target audience; –A needs assessment is done for the identified target audience. 8/17/

Learning objectives 2.Learning objectives communicated to audience –Identified needs are used to create learning objectives for: Overall program Individual sessions within the program –Learning objectives are communicated to participants in advance Within the program or other circulated materials –Learning objectives written to inform participants what information or skill(s) they will acquire by participating in the activity “At the end of this session participants will…” Avoid “appreciate, know, learn, understand” etc. 8/17/

Interactivity 3. At least 25% interactive learning time –Keeping participants engaged! Plenary sessions, small group sessions, roundtables, workshops, break-out sessions, debates –Online programs MUST include interaction between participants and faculty –Opportunities for interaction should be communicated in the program –Delivery method should be reflected in the learning objectives 8/17/

Evaluation 4.Evaluation of: –Learning objectives –Learning outcomes –Adherence to ethical guidelines (conflict of interest/bias) Is there an opportunity to provide details about perceived bias and management strategy? –Opportunities for interactive learning 8/17/

Part C: Section 1-Mandatory Ethical Standards  CMA Guidelines for Physicians in Interactions with Industry.  Interpreted to apply to accredited group learning activities (they were developed for individuals)  The Code of Ethics for parties in Continuing Medical Education of the Conseil québécois de développement professionnel continu des médecins (Quebec). 8/17/

Part C: Section 1-Mandatory Ethical Standards  CMA Guidelines for Physicians in Interactions with Industry.  Interpreted to apply to accredited group learning activities (they were developed for individuals)  The Code of Ethics for parties in Continuing Medical Education of the Conseil québécois de développement professionnel continu des médecins (Quebec). 8/17/

Ethical Standards (cont’d) 1. Physician organization controls: a) topic(s) b) content c) speakers selected 2. Content is scientifically valid and balanced (and not promotional) 3. Conflict of interest declarations received from everyone who influenced content and communicated to participants. 4. Funding provided via educational grants payable to the physician organization 5. There are no product advertisements and sponsorship is appropriately recognized 6. Use of generic names (or both generic and trade names, must be consistent) 8/17/

Considerations for web-based activities In addition to Section 1 face-to-face group learning standards: –Web-based group learning activities must provide an opportunity for interaction between participants and faculty; –Participants must ‘log on’ to the interactive component; –Certificates of participation provided after participants have ‘logged on’ to the interactive component. 8/17/

Remember… “Satellite symposia” (unaccredited group learning activities) must: –Not conflict with or compete with accredited group learning activities –Not be listed or included within conference brochures or schedules Effective July 1, 2012 “tagging” is prohibited – The linking or alignment of a sponsor’s name to a specific educational session within an accredited group learning activity 8/17/

Post-Review Responsibilities Inform the applicant of the status of their application (approved, not-approved, needs improvement). If improvement is required, help counsel the applicant until their program meets the standards (if possible). Notify the Royal College (via ) of the approval using the “Notice of Review” form. 8/17/

International Accreditation Agreements AMA PRA Category 1 credit™ Accredited NSSs may award for their own: –Live group learning activities held in Canada and web-based (which // face-to-face activities) –University Offices = CACME agreement –Accreditation statement, annual report –New agreement January 1, European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) ECMEC –Live group learning activities in Canada –EU physicians convert (MOC) Section 1 to European Continuing Medical Education Credits (ECMECs) –Accreditation statement. 8/17/

International Accreditation Agreements Substantive Equivalency –Accreditation Council on Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) recognized the Royal College’s CPD accreditation system as substantively equivalent. –Activities developed by ACCME accredited physician organizations do not need to be reviewed for MOC Section 1 Credits. Remember… –All self-assessment programs (SAPs) must be reviewed by an accredited CPD provider for MOC Section 3 Credits 8/17/

How are we doing? 8/17/

Where can you get help? 8/17/  Your organization’s policies and procedures  Royal College website  CPD Accreditation Bulletin  Are you on the listerv?!  Office of Professional Affairs staff  Mya Warken  Sarah Beaton  CACME (University Offices of CME)  Your colleagues!

Royal College Website 8/17/

Did you find it? 8/17/

Conclusion Conclusions Next Steps How can we help? 8/17/

Thank you! Please complete the workshop evaluation (delivered to your !) Please feel free to contact us: We’re here for the whole conference! THANK YOU! 8/17/