Evaluation of the tumor board as a Continuing Medical Education (CME) activity: Is it useful?

Maryclare Sarff, Wendy Rogers, Charles Blanke, John Vetto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. 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. Methods. 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. Results. 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. Conclusions. 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)51-56
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Cancer Education
Volume23
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2008

Fingerprint

Continuing Medical Education
Neoplasms
Accreditation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Oncology

Cite this

Evaluation of the tumor board as a Continuing Medical Education (CME) activity : Is it useful? / Sarff, Maryclare; Rogers, Wendy; Blanke, Charles; Vetto, John.

In: Journal of Cancer Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, 01.2008, p. 51-56.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{58e662eadb8d4424b004738e62cf6162,
title = "Evaluation of the tumor board as a Continuing Medical Education (CME) activity: Is it useful?",
abstract = "Background. 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. Methods. 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. Results. 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. Conclusions. 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.",
author = "Maryclare Sarff and Wendy Rogers and Charles Blanke and John Vetto",
year = "2008",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1080/08858190701818226",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "51--56",
journal = "Journal of Cancer Education",
issn = "0885-8195",
publisher = "Springer Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of the tumor board as a Continuing Medical Education (CME) activity

T2 - Is it useful?

AU - Sarff, Maryclare

AU - Rogers, Wendy

AU - Blanke, Charles

AU - Vetto, John

PY - 2008/1

Y1 - 2008/1

N2 - Background. 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. Methods. 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. Results. 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. Conclusions. 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.

AB - Background. 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. Methods. 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. Results. 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. Conclusions. 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=41349108506&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=41349108506&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/08858190701818226

DO - 10.1080/08858190701818226

M3 - Article

C2 - 18444047

AN - SCOPUS:41349108506

VL - 23

SP - 51

EP - 56

JO - Journal of Cancer Education

JF - Journal of Cancer Education

SN - 0885-8195

IS - 1

ER -