President's Perspective April 2014
Podiatric CME Reform: Will There Be White or Black Smoke from CPME This Time?
Thomas S. Roukis, DPM, PhD, FACFAS
year ago in this space, my predecessor, Jordan Grossman, DPM, described
the perilous state of podiatric CME and why it was imperative that the
Council on Podiatric Medical Education (CPME) mandate a quantum leap
forward in how our CME is developed and delivered.
said, “As podiatry stands on the cusp of full professional parity, the
profession must ensure that CME standards are equal, if not more
stringent, than allopathic medicine’s standards. This is an arena that
needs a “sheriff” with vastly more authority – and the will to use it.”
spring, ACFAS submitted detailed recommendations on how to take this
quantum leap, but to our great disappointment, only a few of our points
were included in Round 1 of CPME’s revisions to Documents 720-730 that
regulate CME standards. Fortunately, CPME recently asked for a second
round of comments and we did not retreat. In fact, we issued an even
We said, “ACFAS strongly believes the first round
of (Document 720) revisions is grossly inadequate to meet the
challenges facing the podiatric profession. This is podiatry’s weakest
link. Our learners expect better, government is calling for better and
our patients deserve better. It’s the right thing to do – and it must be
A summary of ACFAS’ concerns include the need to immediately:
third party sponsorship completely or put a cap on how many hours a CME
provider can offer without holding its own accreditation.
complete independence of activities from all commercial interests – and
adding a participant complaint process about commercial bias.
- Increase CPME’s level of scrutiny in monitoring all standards and procedures.
attendees from claiming credits for the whole activity when they only
attended a portion of the activity; and require providers to notify CPME
if the activity was shorter than planned.
- Provide a whistleblower system where program participants may file complaints directly to CPME.
that educational activity design be connected to data demonstrating an
educational need and meet Moore’s Level of Outcomes 3 as the minimum
In our cover letter, we observed that medicine,
pharmacy and nursing are now working toward a joint accreditation. We
also observed that the CME standards for allopathic medicine, nursing,
physician assistants and nurse practitioners all have higher standards
than CPME’s proposed standards. And the APMA House of Delegates has met
twice since CPME started work on Document 720 revisions in 2012, but
they have not taken any positions on this issue.
professions have assured the public that their practitioners will
receive education that is designed to be independent, free from
commercial bias and based on valid content. ACFAS seems to be the lone
voice on this issue. Where is the profession in this “last frontier” in
our campaign for professional parity?
CPME will announce
the final Document 720 revisions soon. Will white or black smoke emerge
from their deliberations this time? We hope CPME shows far more vision
and leadership this time for the sake of our profession and our