“Nothing about me without me” was the rallying cry early in the patient-centered care movement. This phrase was reportedly coined during a panel discussion with Dr. Tom Delbanco in 19941 and energized a crusade for improved engagement of the patient and family in healthcare decision making. More recently, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s (IHI) campaign “What Matters”2 recommends that providers move away from asking, “What is the matter with you?” to “What matters to you?”3 suggesting that meaningful conversations that nurture genuine partnerships foster improved understanding. Over the past 20 years, these shifting perspectives have resulted in regulatory and policy changes that more effectively support “patient-centered care.” While these changes represent a welcome move away from the paternalistic approaches that dominated the medical landscape in the 20th century, there is work still to be done to achieve true person-centered healthcare (PCH). Providers of continuing professional education are uniquely positioned to foster the adoption of evidence-based strategies and initiatives that support shared decision making (SDM) and person-centered care. 
 

Recent changes and improvements to how joint accredited providers work with JA PARS and CPE Monitor have left some providers confused. Although the big picture may be clear enough, the details of how the systems work together are often misunderstood.

Here are seven things to know about how JA PARS works with CPE Monitor and other boards.

When CME requirements were separated from the re-appointment credentialing process and PSS no longer had to monitor physicians’ credits, the institution recognized that if there was no longer a department responsible for tracking CME credits for physicians, this could be a potential risk for the medical center. And while the institution acknowledged that it was the physicians’ own responsibility to maintain their license(s), it also acknowledged that physicians were overburdened by deadlines, documentation, regulations, paperwork, meetings and many other non-clinically related duties.

A rheumatology clinic based in an urban safety-net hospital demonstrated historically low performance in vaccinating its immunosuppressed patient population against pneumococcal disease. In order to mitigate patients’ disproportionately high risk of infection, our quality improvement (QI) team was configured to improve the clinic’s immunization performance.

Efforts to include social media in professional development have been met with mixed reactions, with issues cited including control of content and best use, as well as measurement of learning outcomes.