June 2016

CME Committee Update

Lawrence L. Haber, MD
CME Committee Chair

The Scoliosis Research Society continues to thrive in its commitment to Continuing Medical Education (CME) and maintenance of Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) standards.  We all continue to learn, as we grow and maintain our offerings.  This year we expanded our CME offerings to include journal CME. The membership has done a great overall job of complying with CME requirements and we have seen a continued evolution in planning of events that not only keeps us in line with regulations, but also takes true advantage of the CME process to allow us to put together the best and most impactful offerings.  Lastly, the CME committee continues to function well, even with the growth of responsibilities. 

In conjunction with SRS and the CME committee, Spine Deformity now offers CME credits for articles in each issue.  There are usually three articles per issue designated as CME articles.  These articles are reviewed and chosen by the CME committee.  The entire committee is involved in the process.  To discover which articles have been chosen, go to After reading a CME designated article, the reader is given a four-to-six question quiz.  A score of 100% is required for credit.  However, there is no limit on the amount of times the quiz can be repeated.  After the process is complete, the reader can claim up to 1 CME credit per article.  There is no charge for this service and it is only available to subscribers. 

Our standard method for planning our CME meetings has changed dramatically over the past two years.  A lot of the credit for this success goes to our great staff Courtney Kissinger and Lily Atonio. There is a planning document/process that must be completed for the planning of each meeting.  Much of this process is to identify gaps in knowledge of the membership and objectives for each meeting.  We also discuss ways to evaluate our success at meeting these objectives.  Prior to the planning of CME events, past meeting evaluations are reviewed. Based on communications between the CME Committee, the specific planning committee, education committee and staff, surveys are sent out to targeted groups of members to further delineate potential areas for education or gaps in knowledge.  These targeted groups vary each year and examples include older or younger members, committee members, international members, members that are attending meetings or those that are not.  We vary the targets each time to get a more complete view of the membership’s needs. We also look at morbidity and mortality data, published articles and subjects for which a relatively high number of abstracts are submitted. As a last step in the process, a conference/Web-Ex type call takes place with all planning groups represented. Gap analysis is completed, objectives identified and the planning document is completed for our records. Our Society’s support for this process has been robust and not only does this keep us compliant but it also enables us to use the CME process to offer the best educational programs possible. 

The CME committee continues to function well.  With the addition of journal CME, our responsibilities have grown.  Each member is involved in at least one CME journal article every year.  In addition, we all are involved in reviews of countless abstracts and PowerPoints before CME events.  One area we see room for improvement is the timely submission of PowerPoints and other presentations or abstracts that are requested for review.   By hitting target dates for these requests, we are able to do a much better job of review without last minute stress, email and phone calls.

In summary, SRS and its membership have done a great job of assuming the responsibilities of an ACCME accredited organization.  Our offerings continue to grow.  Violations have been few and most are related to the Product Specific Language policy below.  If we continue on this path, we will be well prepared for our next ACCME review in 2018 as well able to maximize the benefits of our offerings.  

Product-Specific Language Policy (Updated October 14, 2014)

The term “hardware” should not be used in written abstract submissions, oral presentations and E-Poster presentations. The terms “instrumentation,” “implants,” “constructs,” or “montage” should be used instead.

SRS strongly prefers that surgical approaches or specific instrumentation such as “Isola, TSRH, CD, XLIF, DLIF, AxiaLIF, Solera, Vertex, Expedium, Mountaineer, Shilla, VEPTR etc.,” are not used in presentations. These terms should be replaced by a generic description of the instrumentation or technique unless the use of the term directly impacts learners’ understanding of the presentation or data. Instrumentation may also be referred to when the device name is a landmark system that is no longer sold (i.e. Harrington, Cotrel-Dubousset, Luque). Company names and logos must never be used in a presentation.

It is recognized that studies evaluating a device or devices or comparing different devices or techniques may require the use of product or technique names. If a device trade name or industry developed technique using a trademarked name are used in an abstract or presentation, it will be specifically reviewed by the CME Committee for evaluation of any potential conflict of interest. When there is a known potential conflict of interest, an expanded verbal disclosure will be necessary at the time of presentation. Furthermore, if a product name is mentioned, the audience should be informed of why it is necessary to give the name.

Chair: Lawrence L. Haber, MD Committee: Frank J. Schwab, MD; John P. Dormans, MD; Andrew M. Casden, MD; Purnendu Gupta, MD; Michael J. Faloon, MD, MS; Anthony M. Petrizzo, DO; David H. Clements III, MD; Richard Hostin, MD; Samuel K. Cho, MD; Woojin Cho, MD, PhD; Burt Yaszay, MD; Jwalant Mehta, FRCS(Orth); John R. Dimar II, MD