The Liaison Committee on Medical Education now expects all allopathic medical schools to develop and adhere to a documentable continuous quality improvement (CQI) process. Medical schools must consider how to establish a defensible process that monitors compliance with accreditation standards between site visits. The purpose of this descriptive study is to detail how ten schools in the Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) Southern Group on Educational Affairs (SGEA) CQI Special Interest Group (SIG) are tackling practical issues of CQI development including establishing a CQI office, designating faculty and staff, charging a CQI committee, choosing software for data management, if schools are choosing formalized CQI models, and other considerations. The information presented is not meant to certify that any way is the correct way to manage CQI, but simply present some schools' models. Future research should include defining commonalities of CQI models as well as seeking differences. Furthermore, what are components of CQI models that may affect accreditation compliance negatively? Are there "worst practices" to avoid? What LCME elements are most commonly identified for CQI, and what are the successes and struggles for addressing those elements? What are identifiable challenges relating to use of standard spreadsheet software and engaging information technology for support? How can students be more engaged and involved in the CQI process? Finally, how do these major shifts to a formalized CQI process impact the educational experience?