Self Assessment Module (SAM) Online: Conflicts of Interest
Introduction
Released: 11/13/2007 CME/SAM Expiration: 11/13/2010
This educational program is presented by the American College of Radiology. If medicine is to survive as a profession, as distinct from a business, it is vital that radiologists understand the importance of conflicts of interests. What is a conflict of interest, and whose trust is at stake when physicians put themselves in situations where conflicting loyalties obtain? How can radiologists do a better job of recognizing potential conflicts of interests, and what steps can they take to alter or avoid them?
The American College of Radiology designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ and 1 SAM credit.
The American College of Radiology is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
This activity is qualified by the American Board of Radiology in meeting the criteria for self-assessment toward the purpose of fulfilling requirements in the ABR Maintenance of Certification Program.
Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
The participant in this activity will be able to:
Provide examples of situations that represent unacceptable conflicts of interest.
It is estimated that it will require 1.5 hours to read the material in this continuing medical education program and answer the self-assessment questions. After completing the reading, answer the post-test and survey questions. When you're finished, you will be able to print your CME and SAM certificates.
Step by step directions
1. Login and purchase the CME/SAM activity by clicking the Buy Now button.
2. Go to the My Education Page (reached via the ACR Campus) and launch the SAM Online activity.
3. Click the link to open and read each of the referenced articles [available in JACR or Online at this site.]
4. Complete 7 post-test questions about the reading material.
5. Claim CME/SAM credit
6. Optional opinion survey
7. Print your CME certificate
8. Print your SAM certificate
The faculty members listed below have indicated that they have no relevant financial relationships or conflicts of interest related to the presentation of their material.
Richard Gunderman, MD PhD, Indiana University
Janet Strife, MD, University of Cincinnati
Murray Janower, Fomer President of APDR
The ACR has received no commercial support for this activity.
The web-based CME activity requires a version 4.x web browser or newer and is best experienced using a current generation browser such as Internet Explorer 5.5/6.0 or newer. The required reading materials can be viewed using Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Click here to check if you have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed.
Tip: If popups are blocked, hold down the Control Key and then click the link.
More information about the software described above is available by following this link: Free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Required Articles to Read
Professionalism and Physician Interactions With Industry By Jannette Collins, MD, MEd
(To view the articles online, you need to have the Free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
You can read the printed version in JACR May 2006, pg 325)
This article presents a broad framework for understanding the professional and legal responsibilities of physicians when interacting with industry. Physicians have unique responsibilities based on the “fiduciary” nature of the patient-physician relationship and specified laws regarding health care. Physicians must protect the best interests of patients, with clinical decisions free of undue influence. Physicians have special obligations related to receiving gifts from industry or receiving payments that may be construed as “kickbacks” or fraud. To ensure that gifts do not compromise (or seem to compromise) professional judgment, physicians should generally not accept personal gifts from industry and consider accepting only those that primarily entail a benefit to patients, are not of substantial value, and have no “strings” attached. After reading this article, the reader should be able to describe the impact gifts have on physicians’ behavior, the privileges and obligations of physicians, and conflicts between professional obligations and personal gifts.
J Am Coll Radiol 2006;3:325-332. Copyright © 2006 American College of Radiology
Promoting an Ethical Approach to Unproven Screening Imaging Tests
by Evelyn C. Y. Chan, MD, MS
(To view the articles online, you need to have the Free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
You can read the printed version in JACR April 2005, pg 311)
The use of screening imaging technology such as electron beam computed tomography and computed tomographic scans for the early detection of coronary artery disease, lung cancer, and other diseases is rising, even though they have not been proven to reduce disease-specific mortality. Until randomized, controlled trials assess the efficacy of these tests as screening tests, they will remain controversial. It is unclear whether the potential benefits of these screening tests outweigh the risks. In a practice environment in which public demand and enthusiasm for screening is high, radiologists can recognize the ethical issues associated with unproven screening imaging tests; understand current national policies toward professionalism and informed and shared decision making for screening; draw on the lessons learned from the proliferation of another unproven screening test, the prostate-specific antigen blood test for prostate cancer; and work with others in the health care system to promote an ethical approach to screening imaging tests.
J Am Coll Radiol 2005;2:311-320. Copyright © 2005 American College of Radiology
Pay for Performance: Pay More or Pay Less?
by Lawrence C. Swayne, MD
(To view the articles online, you need to have the Free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
You can read the printed version in JACR September 2005, pg 777)
Several recent publications in the radiology literature have reported on the growing phenomenon of pay for performance. This potent new business model seeks to reward health care providers with financial incentives for improvements in the performance and delivery of medical services. This paper briefly reviews some of the obstacles to the implementation of this strategy in the practice of radiology. Radiologists are encouraged to participate actively with payers in discussions about improving quality care but should carefully consider the potential contractual implications associated with these initiatives.
J Am Coll Radiol 2005;2:777-781. Copyright © 2005 American College of Radiology
Questions?
Email us at acrcampus@acr.org
Or call the Education Department (800) 227-5463 ext.4040
|