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.
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.
Authors: Xanthoula Kostaras; Melissa A Shea-Budgell; Emily Malcolm; Jacob C Easaw; Wilson Roa; Neil A Hagen Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.037