Twitter and Conferences, Part 2

For those that know me, I have enjoyed being on Twitter over the past 8 months.  Based on one of the recent Twitter chats I had the privilege of participating in recently (#hcsm, to be exact), I am looking at trying to disseminate information out into the Twitter world that may be helpful to those who follow me.

I wasted no time in getting to work on this.  On January 4, and again on January 11, 2012, I “live-tweeted” bits of information from the Department of Pediatrics Grand Rounds where I work, at the Indiana University School of Medicine.  The topics were phenomenal.  The first was on the state of oncology care at Moi University Referral Hospital in Eldoret, Kenya, with which our institution has an affiliation.  The second, this morning, was a talk on the use of technology for teenagers beginning the transition from pediatric providers to adult providers.  Both were excellent, and I personally learned a lot of great information from each conference.  But how do my followers feel?  I received many “retweets” and comments from each, and am pleased to see that at least a few followers had positive comments about this. (If you are interested in the information from either of these tweets, the Twitter hashtag is #IUPedsGrRounds).

However, live-tweeting a local conference such as one’s own grand rounds is still small, compared to live-tweeting national conferences.  Here is a paper on the topic from 2010, that describes the process.   You can also see a previous blog I wrote about this here, as well as this nice scientific discussion of how Twitter can be used to spread the message about science or medicine.

Progress appears to be somewhat slow with respect to how we can incorporate the use of Twitter at such conferences.  How about putting the Twitter handle on nametags at national meetings, just under their names, and promoting this when people register?  (As an example, I recently joined the Society of Academic CME, and on the application, I was asked for my Twitter handle; way to go, SACME!)  This would be one step towards utilizing and embracing social media for the promotion of great content for either health care professionals or for patients.

So do you tweet conferences, and if you do, why do you do it?  If not, would you be willing to try it at least once for a future conference you attend?  I will guarantee you that this way of “taking notes” has the potential for learning not just for the one tweeting but also others, and can been a lot of fun as well!

Generational Differences in Medical Education

I read a phenomenal article on tips to educate “Generation Y”.  It brings up the issue: how does one learn?  What I like about the article is that it focuses not just on traditional learning, but also on approaches to professionalism, communication styles, and feedback methods.  What I also like is that it is non-judgmental, and does not make Generation Y out to be “bad” and earlier generations to be good. 

One focus of Generation Y which I have heard often is that they are “tech-savvy”; thus, educators should incorporate technology into their teaching repertoire.  Remember that this is not just traditional didactic teaching (the article mentions this), but also teaching at the bedside, teaching in small group sessions and other venues.  I have personally tried to do this myself, but have realized that sometimes the content of what needs to be taught/learned is overshadowed by the “cool tech toy”.  Take audience response systems (ARS), for example.  As more and more teachers are using them, the systems become second nature to learners; teachers should not use them just because it looks cool to flash a graph on a screen.  Use an ARS if it helps engage the learner, or reinforce concepts difficult to grasp.

Contrast that idea with this post on the “older generation” being tech-savvy and actually being more likely to integrate technology into their care of patients.   As another example, several medical schools have provided their students with iPads, and have made learning with the use of an iPad part of the curriculum.  The decision to make this leap forward to embrace technology in the educational realm likely came from an “older generation” physician. 

So how do you think medical educators can best help Generation Y learn?  What strategies can best optimize learning for the ultimate goal of improved patient care?  I am particularly interested in what Gen Y folks think.  One parting thought that the focus should be about the learner, and ultimately all about the patient!

Maintenance of Certification

Board certification as a marker of competence of the medical knowledge necessary in each medical field has been touted for a long time.  Residency programs stress the importance of passing “the boards”, and provide education to residents in the form of didactics that are commonly geared not only to clinical care, but also towards this examination and the skills needed to pass it.

What does it mean to be board certified?  The official term is “Diplomate of the American Board of ___” (depending on one’s specialty).  What it means is that the physician has completed training in her/his area of expertise, and has passed the initial certifying examination (or set of written and oral examinations, for some specialties).  Currently, this certification expires after a certain time period (ten years, for example).

In the past, physicians had to sit for and pass a “recertification” examination, although now the process has changed significantly.  Physicians are now required to demonstrate a valid license to practice medicine, complete an appropriate set of practice questions to demonstrate lifelong learning, pass another certifying examination, and also complete a performance or quality improvement project.  Together, these four parts are known as “Maintenance of Certification”.  An excellent explanation of this process, from the American Board of Pediatrics, is noted here.

There are some physicians who feel that this process to “recertify” is onerous, and not necessary.  There are others who feel it is absolutely essential to demonstrate a minimum standard within the specialty.  I personally fall into this second category.  There are a select few who “grandfathered” in, meaning that their original board certificate was lifelong, thus indicating that they were never required to recertify if they so choose.  This “grandfathering” process is not done anymore in any of the specialties, but there are obviously those who still hold such certificates.

An interesting point-counterpoint as to “should someone who is grandfathered go through maintenance of certification” has been noted.  Those in favor of pushing for everyone to recertify cite this article and others, which showed that those who maintained their certification provided improved processes of care for certain populations than those who did not maintain the certification. 

The American Board of Medical Specialties is soon making public the information around whether a diplomate is undergoing or has undergone maintenance of certification.   I applaud this reason, as I believe that patients deserve to know whether their physician has or has not met this “minimum standard”.  Others do not feel the same, citing multiple reasons why maintenance of certification is onerous, costly, and takes time away from direct patient care.

What do you think?  Should maintenance of certification be public information for all to see, or not?  Should we push physicians who have not maintained their certifications to do so, or to not be permitted to practice their craft?