1 / 18

6 th Annual Conference ~ Minneapolis

This report details the progress of the Minneapolis Advanced Interprofessional Informatics Certification Task Force, exploring certification of informatics professionals and implications for various stakeholders. Steps taken so far, consensus statements, environmental scans, and next steps are discussed.

kreps
Download Presentation

6 th Annual Conference ~ Minneapolis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 6th Annual Conference ~ Minneapolis Advanced Interprofessional Informatics Certification (AIIC) Task Force Report – May 23, 2012 Cindy Gadd (Chair), JT Finnell, Dean Sittig, Nancy Roderer, Ann Peden, Greg Alexander, Rita Kukafka (BOD liaison), Stuart Speedie (AF Chair)

  2. 6th Annual Conference ~ Minneapolis AIIC Task Force Charge Explore certification of informatics professionals in parallel with CI subspecialty certification development Implications for AMIA in such an initiative, independently or with a partner Implications for AF member organizations Implications for employment for professionals in our field

  3. 6th Annual Conference ~ Minneapolis Steps in the AIIC process so far Environmental scan of the certification landscape in informatics Development of consensus statement Comment period for AF members Endorsed and forwarded to the AMIA Board of Directors by the AF Executive Committee

  4. 6th Annual Conference ~ Minneapolis Consensus Statement Summary The AIIC should be profession/discipline neutral – focused on the common, “core informatics competencies” To create competitive value in the field, the AIIC should “advanced” on par with CI subspecialty certification AMIA should explore cooperative models with ABPM or other organizations with experience in certification programs

  5. 6th Annual Conference ~ Minneapolis Environmental Scan Several professions have informatics certifications: IS/CS: CPHIMS thru HIMSS Health Information Management: HIM (RHIA, RHIT, others) thru AHIMA (CCHIIM) Nursing Informatics: Subspecialty in Informatics Nursing thru ANA (ANCC) Eligibility: under/graduate degrees plus experience

  6. 6th Annual Conference ~ Minneapolis Environmental Scan cont. Other professions do not have informatics certifications: MD nonboard-certified, trained in informatics nonMD PhDs trained in informatics Dental informatics Medical librarianship Public health informatics (x-cutting competency)

  7. 6th Annual Conference ~ Minneapolis Consensus Statement – Add’l Points Eligibility requirements for an AIIC exam will be complicated by the high degree of variability associated with multiple professional training paths Desirable to preserve AMIA’s ability to offer exam prep and MoC education At time of environmental scan, no other organizations were announcing plans for certifications but this is a fast changing world

  8. 6th Annual Conference ~ Minneapolis Next Steps for AIIC AMIA leadership, staff, and TF to further explore: Implications for existing and new interorganizational relationships ABPM Impact on other existing relationships Business models Timeframe – first CI subspecialty exam anticipated in fall of 2013; would like AIIC to be available in similar timeframe

  9. Accreditation Task Force Informal Report

  10. Charge • An analysis of alternative strategies for supporting these subspecialty training programs in seeking accreditation, with respective strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for AMIA and the supporting member organizations. Such strategies may include creating a service bureau with in AMIA, providing a staff member for advising, or through member working groups. The analysis should take cognizance of AMIA’s desire to address certification of trainees outside the MD/board structure. • A set of contacts and opinions at other professional societies who have faced this decision and who currently who advise their member organizations as they seek accreditation. • A range of the costs, and the sources of those costs, entailed by organizations in seeking and maintaining accreditation to assess budgetary implications. • A list of services, skills, and materials organizations find they need in preparing for, and maintaining, accreditation.

  11. Report • To Board by Nov meeting • Draft report in Sept

  12. Members • George Demiris, U Washington • Claire.Dixon-Lee: Executive Director CAHIIM • Peter Embi, Ohio State: Vice Chair of Biomedical Informatics and will be leading the clinical informatics fellowship • Philip Kroth, New Mexico: Directs the informatics research fellowship program • Chris Lehmann: Direct Child health informatics center at AAP and secretary of AMIA; writing exam questions • Harold Lehmann, Johns Hopkins: Directs the training programs • Vishnu Mohan, OHSU: was involved in a residency accreditation • Tim Patrick: Department of Health Informatics and Administration in the College of Health Sciences at Univ of Wisconsin-Milwaukee • Joel Saltz: Chair of Biomiedical Informatics at Emory • Anne Turner, U Washington: Public health program • Annette Valenta, UIC: Associate Dean for Health Informatics and Technology in the UIC College of Applied Health Sciences

  13. ACGME issues • Announced “Next Accreditation System” of accreditation that has been piloted (Vishnu with experience) and will go into effect 2014. Based on annual self attestation with q 10 year closer scrutiny. Focus on outcome and measurement. Discussed in a NEJM article. More info at http://www.acgme-nas.org/ • No contact person with AMIA since last summer • Issue: AMIA should recommend education outcome measures

  14. Local Issues • There will be no specific RRC committee. Therefore informatics folks have to identify a local sponsor (e.g., Pathology) and work with that RRC. • Issue: Get informatics expertise on the RRC

  15. Possible Services: Getting Accredited • Summarization/commentary of applicable ACGME Rules • Funding Strategies • Model budgets (de novo; building on existing informatics training programs) • Model outcomes and measurement methods • Facilitate conversation between informatics programs and residency directors   • Model business case, for “selling” to other departments, consortial hospitals, residency programs • Provide common ground for working with the 24 boards • Host an accreditation workshop

  16. Possible Services: Staying Accredited(Program Management) • Recruitment (e.g., start with “internal” candidates) • Model databases for program management • Bank of job descriptions • Publicity of programs (includes program outcomes) • Sounding board (community of practice) of programs • Provide programs with sample (dummy) exams. Perhaps use med school shelf exams as a model. • Advice to prospective fellows on how to balance primary board and informatics board maintenance of certification

  17. To Do • Continue local interviews, aiming at local program and how professional societies helped • Build up the contact list • Parking lot items: • Sponsor task force member to go to an accreditation workshop • Helping ACGME with issue of informatics as patient care

More Related