Update on the Iowa Physician Acceptability Survey for MOL

This is a reminder about the upcoming Physician Acceptability Survey regarding Maintenance of Licensure (MOL) in Iowa that will be available on line for Iowa licensees probably in the next week and running through mid-April. See my previous post for details, especially about Question 31 which asks for comments: “Please provide any additional comments you might have that are related to this survey or to your overall thoughts about MOL.”

Because this survey has already been completed in Colorado and Virginia, I thought it would be interesting to share what’s available on line at the respective web sites for those states about the survey.

You can view the survey announcement at link Physician Survey Intro on MOL for Colorado and the results at Colorado Physician Acceptability Survey MOL Results.

The results indicate that Colorado physicians want more feedback about their performance. An important excerpt from the Colorado board reveals:

CME research suggests that if physicians are expected to change their practice as a result of what they learn in a continuing education activity, the activity should include an opportunity to first practice what they learn and receive objective feedback about their performance (JCEHP 2009, Moore et al.). The fact that physicians typically do not receive feedback from live CME conferences is not surprising given that CME design has not yet caught up to CME research; in-person conferences are held external to the practice setting, largely in a lecture format, and rarely offer physicians an opportunity to practice what was learned and receive feedback.

This is important information for the MOL initiative because an MOL framework based on a continuous learning and improving cycle will require physicians to participate in activities that provide feedback through self-assessments and objective assessments, so they can identify opportunities for improvement and choose learning activities accordingly.

Our future projects related to MOL will need to focus on providing clear communication about the requirements and continue to identify appropriate CME/CPD tools for physicians to choose. And, while traditional types of continuing education may still be effective, especially when they offer design characteristics such as interactive components, multiple exposures, and multi-format (AHRQ January 2007), CME providers will need to explore ways to integrate assessments and feedback in their programs or CME if they want to help support physicians with their MOL and/or MOC requirements.

It sounds like Colorado agrees with implementing MOL. I don’t have the sense that Iowa physicians want MOL, though, and the Iowa Medical Society House of Delegates adopted my resolution to support lifelong learning and oppose MOL in April 2013. The resolution was co-sponsored by the Iowa Psychiatric Society. I think adopting MOL in Iowa would hurt recruitment of physicians here. Many thousands of physicians are opposed to MOC and MOL.

I found less information about the results from the Virginia survey, which had the same sort of introduction but with some interesting warnings about any comments from licensees (this probably refers to Question 31); see link Physician Survey Intro on MOL for Virginia. Even more interesting is that it looks like there might not have been any comments on this survey (it looks like no one answered Question 31), which was originally available starting mid-May of 2013.

Moreover, when I searched for survey results (which I thought would be available by now) by checking the Virginia medical board meeting minutes, I couldn’t find much except that the December 2013 record (Virginia Medical Board Meeting Minutes MOL mentioned.pdf) had a comment which seemed to indicate the board was not even aware the survey had been distributed (see page 14):

Letter of Comment on Maintenance of Licensure from Jerome M. Parsons, MD

Dr. Harp pointed to the correspondence from Dr. Parsons in which he asks how the Maintenance

of Licensure pilot will improve the quality of care provided by a practitioner. Dr. Harp reminded

the Board that it had agreed to help out with the FSMB pilot process by 1) helping to figure out

how to integrate MOL into the license renewal process, 2) by taking a readiness survey, and 3) by

reviewing outreach material prepared for the public, the medical community and others. So far,

only the second item has been accomplished.

Note that the “readiness survey” is not the same item as the Physician Acceptability Survey. I wonder if Virginia doctors are inquiring about the results of the latter.

In any case, I’m again encouraging Iowa licensees to complete the Physician Acceptability Survey, and I’m urging them to complete Question 31. I have many posts about MOL if you need any background information. Just type “Maintenance of Licensure” in the search box or click the “Lets Rap About Maintenance of Certification” item in the menu below the header. Also be sure to visit the link http://www.changeboardrecert.com/mol.html. There is a lot of information at this site about Maintenance of Certification as well.

You may also consider signing the following petitions:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/iowa-medical-society-house-of-delegates/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/580/584/211/abim-should-recall-the-recent-changes-to-maintenance-of-certification-moc/

In my opinion, the idea behind this campaign is not so much about opposing MOL and MOC, but about affirming the importance of the principle of lifelong learning and actively generating ideas for better ways to achieve this.

Oh, and please answer Question 31 on the Physician Acceptability Survey.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: