Volume 42, Issue 4 (July 1997)
A Report on the New AAFS Continuing Medical Education Reporting Procedures: The Pathology/Biology Section Perspective
This paper summarizes data obtained from the new AAFS continuing medical education report forms to provide potentially useful information to future presenters and for program planning. The proportion of presentations that were above average to excellent in content, delivery, and visual aid usage along with the proportion of presentations that brought new knowledge, affirmed existing knowledge, or modified current practice and categorization and tabulation of specific comments about presentations and the program are given. The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) revised its CME reporting procedures for its annual meeting in February 1996. A CME credit reporting booklet was prepared, and space was provided to rank each presentation from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) regarding the quality of visual aids, presentation, and delivery. In addition, responders could indicate with Yes/No answers whether the presentation affirmed current knowledge, brought new knowledge, or would result in a modification of practice. Space was also provided for open ended comments. Data were summarized in aggregate for all presentations within the Pathology/Biology Section. 52% of presentations were rated overall as being above average or excellent. 52% of presentations had rankings of four or five (better than average to excellent) for delivery, 57% had such ratings for audiovisuals, and 56% had such ratings for content. The number of responders who were brought new knowledge ranged from 43% to 92% for a given presentation and showed an overall average of 66%. Affirmation of existing knowledge ranged from 36% to 85% of for the various presentations and averaged 68%. Presented material was reported to result in a change of practice among 10% to 73% of responders for the various presentations and averaged 31%. Generally supportive comments such as “good presentation” were the most common. Somewhat negative comments about information being of limited usefulness, irrelevant to practice, or of suspicious conclusion were second most common. These and other related data, and the feedback of individual evaluations to presenters may be useful for improving the AAFS Path/Bio program in the future.