MOC4的学术优势。

IF 2.3 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.10.014
Glenn Seela, David Satin, Cathy Centola, Sameer Gupta, Paul Hodges, Jeff Louie, Tanya E Melnik, David Pelletier, Christina Russell, Andrew Thompson, Jordan Marmet
{"title":"MOC4的学术优势。","authors":"Glenn Seela, David Satin, Cathy Centola, Sameer Gupta, Paul Hodges, Jeff Louie, Tanya E Melnik, David Pelletier, Christina Russell, Andrew Thompson, Jordan Marmet","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.10.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many medical boards require quality improvement (QI) projects for Maintenance of Certification Part IV (MOC4) credits. The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) allows health care organizations that can demonstrate sufficient QI standards to become Portfolio Program Sponsors. This enables internal review and approval of QI projects, crediting all sufficiently contributing physicians. The University of Minnesota's M Health Fairview MOC4 Review Board (MMRB) was approved as an ABMS Portfolio Program Sponsor; the impact was surveyed from inception in 2016 to 2022. The objective was to examine the impact of a Portfolio Sponsor program on scholarship, sustainability, and spread of QI projects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors developed and validated an eight-question survey directed at MOC4 principal investigators (PIs) who were awarded credits through the MMRB from 2016 to 2022. Participants reported on numbers of peer-reviewed publication or presentation, and their perception of increased preparedness for scholarship due to the application process. They also reported on sustainment or spread following their original QI project.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty projects were reviewed over a seven-year span. Of these, 44 were approved as demonstrating sufficient QI rigor per ABMS standards. Of 41 PIs, 27 (65.9%) responded to the survey; 15 (55.6%) agreed that the MMRB process helped prepare them for scholarly dissemination, 19 (70.4%) delivered oral or poster presentations, and 10 (37.0%) submitted a total of 14 manuscripts for publication, 10 of which were accepted. A total of 23 QI projects (85.2%) were sustained, and 10 (37.0%) had spread.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In addition to generating essential MOC4 credits for participating physicians, an MMRB process can help PIs prepare for scholarship, project sustainment, and spread.</p>","PeriodicalId":14835,"journal":{"name":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","volume":" ","pages":"101-107"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Scholarly Upside to MOC4.\",\"authors\":\"Glenn Seela, David Satin, Cathy Centola, Sameer Gupta, Paul Hodges, Jeff Louie, Tanya E Melnik, David Pelletier, Christina Russell, Andrew Thompson, Jordan Marmet\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.10.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many medical boards require quality improvement (QI) projects for Maintenance of Certification Part IV (MOC4) credits. The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) allows health care organizations that can demonstrate sufficient QI standards to become Portfolio Program Sponsors. This enables internal review and approval of QI projects, crediting all sufficiently contributing physicians. The University of Minnesota's M Health Fairview MOC4 Review Board (MMRB) was approved as an ABMS Portfolio Program Sponsor; the impact was surveyed from inception in 2016 to 2022. The objective was to examine the impact of a Portfolio Sponsor program on scholarship, sustainability, and spread of QI projects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors developed and validated an eight-question survey directed at MOC4 principal investigators (PIs) who were awarded credits through the MMRB from 2016 to 2022. Participants reported on numbers of peer-reviewed publication or presentation, and their perception of increased preparedness for scholarship due to the application process. They also reported on sustainment or spread following their original QI project.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty projects were reviewed over a seven-year span. Of these, 44 were approved as demonstrating sufficient QI rigor per ABMS standards. Of 41 PIs, 27 (65.9%) responded to the survey; 15 (55.6%) agreed that the MMRB process helped prepare them for scholarly dissemination, 19 (70.4%) delivered oral or poster presentations, and 10 (37.0%) submitted a total of 14 manuscripts for publication, 10 of which were accepted. A total of 23 QI projects (85.2%) were sustained, and 10 (37.0%) had spread.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In addition to generating essential MOC4 credits for participating physicians, an MMRB process can help PIs prepare for scholarship, project sustainment, and spread.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14835,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"101-107\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.10.014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.10.014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:许多医学委员会要求质量改进(QI)项目来维护认证第四部分(MOC4)学分。美国医学专业委员会(ABMS)允许能够证明足够的QI标准的卫生保健组织成为投资组合计划的赞助商。这使得QI项目能够进行内部审查和批准,并将所有充分贡献的医生归功于自己。明尼苏达大学M Health Fairview MOC4审查委员会(MMRB)被批准为ABMS投资组合项目赞助商;从2016年开始到2022年,对其影响进行了调查。目的是检查投资组合赞助计划对奖学金、可持续性和QI项目传播的影响。方法:作者开发并验证了一项针对2016年至2022年通过MMRB获得学分的MOC4首席研究员(pi)的8个问题调查。参与者报告了同行评审的出版物或演讲的数量,以及他们对申请过程提高奖学金准备程度的看法。他们还报告了原始QI项目之后的维持或传播情况。结果:在7年的时间里对50个项目进行了审查。其中,44个被批准为证明了足够的符合ABMS标准的QI严格性。41个pi中,27个(65.9%)回应了调查;15人(55.6%)认为MMRB过程帮助他们为学术传播做好了准备,19人(70.4%)进行了口头或海报演讲,10人(37.0%)提交了14篇论文供发表,其中10篇被接受。共有23个项目(85.2%)得到维持,10个项目(37.0%)得到扩展。结论:除了为参与项目的医生产生必要的MOC4学分外,MMRB流程还可以帮助pi为奖学金、项目维持和推广做好准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Scholarly Upside to MOC4.

Background: Many medical boards require quality improvement (QI) projects for Maintenance of Certification Part IV (MOC4) credits. The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) allows health care organizations that can demonstrate sufficient QI standards to become Portfolio Program Sponsors. This enables internal review and approval of QI projects, crediting all sufficiently contributing physicians. The University of Minnesota's M Health Fairview MOC4 Review Board (MMRB) was approved as an ABMS Portfolio Program Sponsor; the impact was surveyed from inception in 2016 to 2022. The objective was to examine the impact of a Portfolio Sponsor program on scholarship, sustainability, and spread of QI projects.

Methods: The authors developed and validated an eight-question survey directed at MOC4 principal investigators (PIs) who were awarded credits through the MMRB from 2016 to 2022. Participants reported on numbers of peer-reviewed publication or presentation, and their perception of increased preparedness for scholarship due to the application process. They also reported on sustainment or spread following their original QI project.

Results: Fifty projects were reviewed over a seven-year span. Of these, 44 were approved as demonstrating sufficient QI rigor per ABMS standards. Of 41 PIs, 27 (65.9%) responded to the survey; 15 (55.6%) agreed that the MMRB process helped prepare them for scholarly dissemination, 19 (70.4%) delivered oral or poster presentations, and 10 (37.0%) submitted a total of 14 manuscripts for publication, 10 of which were accepted. A total of 23 QI projects (85.2%) were sustained, and 10 (37.0%) had spread.

Conclusion: In addition to generating essential MOC4 credits for participating physicians, an MMRB process can help PIs prepare for scholarship, project sustainment, and spread.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
116
审稿时长
49 days
期刊最新文献
Examining Patient Safety Events Using the Behaviour Change Wheel: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections by Leadership Focus on Process Measures. Implementation of the Revised American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hyperbilirubinemia Decreases Necessity for Serum Bilirubin and Phototherapy. The Impact of a Cohort Structure on Grantee Experiences Developing Clinical Quality Measures for Diagnostic Excellence. The Scholarly Upside to MOC4.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1