Harvard Continuing Medical Education Radiology
I am attending Harvard Medical School's yearly internal medicine update this week. In a little over 6 days we experience 62 hours of medical education, sitting for 12 hours each day in the conference room of a shiny glass and steel hotel in downtown Boston. We hear world authorities on diseases of all of the major organ systems tell us what they think we ought to know. I am two days into it and still pretty excited, but losing a bit of my enthusiasm.
Most of the presenters follow a set of power point slides, sometimes word for word, that are reproduced in our course syllabus in a size that is nearly entirely unreadable. The form of the talks is to present the scope of the problem, then the recommended testing and treatment, interspersed with the research that is the basis for the recommendations, with an occasional cartoon or anecdote. There are also brief question and answer sessions and cases presented with recommendations on management. There are audience response handsets so we can participate in multiple choice questions, in order to keep us awake and focused.
Each of the presenters is a specialist, the worlds expert on irritable bowel syndrome or sleep apnea or one aspect of liver disease. They teach us how to treat the problems they see as the final go to doctors for the entire world. Some of the diseases are common, but we are encouraged to entertain a differential diagnosis that includes diseases only seen a few hundred times a year. Most of these I have heard of at some time, but could only really say what organ system they involve, not what they look like or how they are treated. We are taught the treatments that studies show work, at least for a proportion of patients. We are taught the 10 blood tests or imaging studies that we should never forget to order if we don't want to miss something. They mention that they realize that we, as general internists, have limited time with each patient, but rarely do they tailor their information to make it practical for us to achieve in a patient visit. They haven't been doing what I love to see clinical teachers do-telling us what they know to be true from their vast experience. I think that the emphasis on "evidence based medicine" has made them doubt the value of their hard won wisdom.
A few of these excellent clinicians have, however, been starting to talk about limitations of population studies to guide therapeutics. One oncologist said that different types of cancer will eventually be seen as collections of "orphan diseases". Orphan diseases are usually considered to be rare diseases that are well described, but not prevalent enough to warrant as extensive research and treatment development as diseases that are more common and have more of a social impact. What this oncologist meant is that each cancer may have slightly different genetics in different individuals, leading to very different responses to chemotherapies or other treatments.
CMS proposes removing CME exclusion from Sunshine Act regulations, citing .. — Lexology
.. physician or teaching hospital (Covered Recipient) or physician owner/investor, or by an Applicable GPO to a physician owner/investor, for speaking at a continuing medical education (CME) program need not be reported if the following conditions are ..
CAP Receives Re-Accreditation as Premier CME Provider — Newswise
The College of American Pathologists was resurveyed by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) and awarded Accreditation with Commendation for six years as a provider of continuing medical education (CME) for physicians.