Sarff Maryclare, Rogers Wendy, Blanke Charles, Vetto John T
Division of Surgical, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
J Cancer Educ. 2008 Jan-Mar;23(1):51-6. doi: 10.1080/08858190701818226.
Although it has been previously reported that offering continuing medical education (CME) credit is not a major factor in tumor board attendance, the results/utility of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education mandated evaluations of those tumor boards offering CME credit has not been studied.
We reviewed the CME evaluations of our University Gastrointestinal Tumor Board; this meeting was chosen because it is multidisciplinary, well attended, and offers CME credit contingent on completing a standard CME evaluation form each session.
Of the 2736 attendees, 660 (24%) at the 79 consecutive conferences studied completed the evaluation for CME credit. Reported satisfaction was high; the average response on the 4-question satisfaction survey was 5 (Excellent) on a 5-point Likert scale, only 6% of attendees perceived any commercial bias, and only 3 attendees stated that the conference did not achieve the stated objectives. Of the respondents, 42% indicated that the tumor board information would change their practice, although few specific examples were given. A minority of responders provided specific feedback.
A minority of attendees at this tumor board utilized CME credit. Although satisfaction and impact ratings were high, potential response set bias, lack of specific feedback, and nonresponse bias were limitations to the evaluations.
尽管此前有报道称提供继续医学教育(CME)学分并非肿瘤病例讨论会参会率的主要影响因素,但对于继续医学教育认证委员会要求对提供CME学分的肿瘤病例讨论会进行评估的结果及效用尚未进行研究。
我们回顾了本校胃肠肿瘤病例讨论会的CME评估情况;选择该会议是因为它具有多学科性、参会人数众多,且每场会议都要求填写标准的CME评估表以获取CME学分。
在2736名参会者中,在所研究的连续79场会议上,有660名(24%)参会者完成了CME学分评估。报告显示满意度较高;在4个问题的满意度调查中,平均回答在5分制李克特量表上为5分(优秀),只有6%的参会者认为存在任何商业偏见,只有3名参会者表示会议未达成既定目标。在受访者中,42%表示肿瘤病例讨论会的信息会改变他们的临床实践,不过很少给出具体例子。少数受访者提供了具体反馈。
该肿瘤病例讨论会中少数参会者使用了CME学分。尽管满意度和影响力评分较高,但潜在的反应定势偏差、缺乏具体反馈以及无应答偏差是评估的局限性。