I just put together this quick video slideshow of our Pharmaceutical Meeting Management Forum at animoto.com.

From the opening reception to the closing wrapup, it was pretty fabulous if I do say so myself. I’m still digging out from the meeting, but watch for more to come, including a video with Pfizer MEG’s Brian McGowan, PhD, who did a fantastic session on social media.

Every time one of the powers-that-be in CME comes out with an announcement, new rule, or even just a white paper, we all start doing mental gymnastics trying to figure out exactly what the words mean so we can figure out how they’ll affect what we do.

After seeing all the confusion surrounding the ABMS white paper, I was inspired to contemplate just why those said powers-that-be can’t just tell us what they want in clear, unambiguous language. Part of that contemplation resulted in this issue’s editorial, but part of me keeps on wondering why these things have to be so confusing and open to interpretation.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on why this is and, more importantly, what, if anything, those who must abide by the rules can do to encourage clearer communications.

Update: I just read this post on Gaping Void and for some reason it resonated with my thoughts on this whole clarity thing: On Living the Bliss-Centered Life. Instead of “bliss,” read “ACCME accreditation criteria” and it pretty much follows what ACCME’s executive Murray Kopelow always says, that the accreditor’s rules have to have enough leeway in them to allow each organization to figure out how to best apply them to their specific organization and not have to contort themselves to fit some predetermined one-size-fits-all model.

As Hugh says in his post, “Joseph [Campbell] told me to follow my bliss, but he never told me how. He really didn’t have to many concrete tips or pointers. He just told his readers to just do it.

Much to our chagrin, it was something we were just going to have to figure out all by ourselves…”

Granted, I’ve never heard any equate accreditation with commendation with bliss, but, like so many other things in life, it’s one more thing each of us has to figure out for ourselves. OK, Yoda is now signing off…

It may be snowing right now here in Massachusetts(!), but more than the vernal equinox tells me spring really is on the way—the 7th Annual Pharmaceutical Meeting Management Forum is just a week away. I know, Medical Meetings cosponsors the conference with The Center for Business Intelligence, so I might be a tad biased, but it’s going to be really good this year.

In addition to learning all about strategic meeting management, from the basics to some really high-level implementation ideas, and a bunch of networking opps, we’re also doing some really cool sessions on things like social media, led by our columnist, Brian S. McGowan, PhD, who I think is one seriously brilliant guy; and virtual and hybrid meetings led by Jeff Hurt and Dave Lutz from Velvet Chainsaw Consulting (two more seriously brilliant guys). Of course, there also will be lots of info on state and federal rules and regs, along with tips on how to stay in compliance. Check out the agenda for all the session details.

One thing I’m really excited about is that Boston’s Improv Asylum is going to be joining in a session on advancing your career, and in the final general session. From their clips, I think they’ll inject some energy and fun into it, too.

So if you’re a meeting planner in the pharma, medical device, or other life sciences-related industry, I hope to see you next week in Philadelphia!

Congratulations to Perry Pugno, MD, MPH, who is now vice president for education with the American Academy of Family Physicians. He’ll be in charge of the organization’s undergrad, resident, and CME efforts, leading a team of nearly 60 AAFP staff members. Sounds like a big job!

The American Board of Medical Specialties’ white paper on CME for Maintenance of Certification just got a little more feedback from stakeholder communities.

Here are position papers issued recently by the Alliance for CME, the Society for Academic CME, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies.

From all the reactions I’ve read and heard so far, a lot of the problems people are having with it is its vagueness — you can read almost anything into pieces of it, depending on how you’re approaching the information. I’m guessing the ABMS is wishing it had been a little clearer on this first shot. Or maybe not. If it just wanted feedback, well, be careful what you wish for! I for one am really glad to be hearing all of this dialog on how CME can be used to support MOC, and where the CME community perhaps needs to do some more work before it can claim to be providing education that will reach the MOC’s requirements.

(Thanks to Tom Sullivan for providing all the links to the reactions as they come out. It is making it really hard to write an article on this, though. Talk about a moving target!)

Update: I just found this video by our columnist, Stephen Lewis, of Global Education Group, that outlines what he found to be productive and unproductive about the white paper. I like that he provides some positive feedback along with the negative.

If you know someone who is involved in global medical education and has something to crow about, why not submit their work for consideration for one of the Global Alliance for Medical Education awards? You may want to get started soon, though, since the March 31 deadline is creeping up. Here’s a link to a PDF outlining the various awards criteria, and an entry form.

Good luck! I hope to be writing about you after the winners are announced at the 16th Annual GAME Meeting, scheduled for June 5-7, 2011 in Munich!

As promised, the Accreditation Council for CME has made good on the revisions to its complaints process it made last summer and has published a Complaints Process Web page, a compendium of blinded summaries from the complaints process, and an online complaints submission form.

So now you have some materials to help better understand the ACCME’s compliance expectations.

And, just in case you haven’t gotten around to it, the latest ACCME e-newsletter included a reminder to ACCME-accredited providers to enter your 2010 program and activity data by March 31. The annual data report that comes out of all your work is so useful for all of us that I’ll add my entreaties to ACCME’s.

You do have to use the ACCME’s Program and Activity Reporting System if you are ACCME-accredited. If you’re not sure how to use the system, check out one of the accreditor’s PARS webinars. Called “Answering Your PARS Questions,” they don’t cost anything, but you do need to register to make sure you get a slot. If webinars aren’t your thing, there are a bunch of other resources on ACCME’s Web site.

I love the way Frank J. Veith, MD, professor of surgery, Department of Surgery, NYU Medical Center, New York; and professor of surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, lays out the reasons why commercial support isn’t actually the devil in this article on Medscape. I particularly like this line: “Perhaps congressmen, state legislators, and others who are so eager to prevent even the appearance of financial conflict of interest between doctors and industry should first apply the same standards to their own relationships with their financial supporters.” Hmm, I think I made the same suggestion not too long ago.

Anyway, it’s a good argument toward, as he says in the headline, fixing the relationships, not severing them.