Good Medical Practice
Click here to see the Assignments for all the teams
| Team 1 | Team 2 | Team 3 | ||
| Synthesize Paradigm Work | GMP 0.2 Review | GMP Alternative | ||
| Clyman, Stephen | Adams-Ender, Clara | Clarkson, John | ||
| Kahn, Norman | Annis, Joseph | Cohen, Jordan | ||
| Little, Brian | Clark, Danny | Cox, Malcolm | ||
| Sachdeva, Ajit | Puffer, Jim | McHugh, James | ||
| Sheppa, Michael | Stack, Steven | Turton, Frederick | ||
| Susank, Edward | ||||
| Swartwout, James | ||||
| Team 4 | Team 5 | Team 6 | ||
| GMP Next Steps: Evolution | Possible GMP Pilots I | GMP Pilots (Survey Results) | ||
| Becher, Jr, John | Aschenbrener, Carol | Davis, David | ||
| Meoli, Frederick | Ayres, Ronald | Gallagher, Thomas | ||
| Panagopoulos, Amy | Clothier, Carol | Hafner-Fogarty, Rebecca | ||
| Pohl, Henry | Hawkins, Richard | Nylen, John | ||
| Rhodes, Robert | Miles, Paul | |||
| Schoenbaum, Stephen | Wolfson, Daniel | |||
| Skolnik, Patty | ||||
| Thompson, Jim | ||||
| Team 7 | Team 8 | Team 9 | ||
| GMP & Licensing Boards | GMP NBME Survey - Tool Feedback | GMP NBME Survey - How to Use | ||
| Benjamin, Regina | Bailey, Susan | Wilson, Modena | ||
| Finelli, Frederick | Davis, Nancy | Jobe, Ann | ||
| Haley, Kathleen | Dorman, Todd | Melnick, Donald | ||
| Heard, Jeanne | Van Etta, Linda | |||
| Kendel, Dennis | Team 10 | |||
| Kowalski, Timothy | GMP Guidebook | |||
| Lefebvre, Fleur-Ange | Bechamps, Gerald | |||
| Padmore, Jamie | Brim, Melanie | |||
| Schneidman, Barbara | Dalton, Claudette | |||
| Stockman, James | Hoven, Ardis | |||
| Watt, David | Spivey, Bruce |
Links to the Wiki
GMP1: Shifting Paradigm Summary
GMP8: GMP NBME Survey - Tool Feedback
GMP9: GMP NBME Survey - How to Use
Debrief
We’re going to see other entities getting involved in healthcare. This will be looking at the entire system. This will be more expanded, so going forward we might be including other perspectives that aren’t represented there now.
It’s good enough to stimulate the difficult conversations.
We’re talking about an appendix to the document. Is there any thing in the appendix that takes away from the document? No. If we vote on this, we’ll create havoc by releasing this document as it is. We’ll get into endless discussions about things that aren’t as important as the concept of the document.
MK: How many people can live with the first 6 pages of the GMP only (as the document)? [A couple of hands raised]
Just for fun, how many of you would like to get rid of the details, the Appendix 1? [about 10 raised]
How many would like to get rid of patient perspective [3 hands raised]
To me the real question is how much am I physician-centric as opposed to expert-centric. And we’ve been skirting that topic for 10 years.
MK: Let’s reflect on whether the GMP helps us have the conversations that would move us from where we are to where we want to go.
- Yes
- Only partly
- No
There’s probably a consensus here that we haven’t field-tested it. All of these issues are testable.
MK: So this document is already in the conversation.
Yes, the organizations are already at the table so it’s just natural that the issue gets brought up. Because we have the perception that this is not ready for primetime, we just don’t say that we’re going to use this at this point. How many other organizations would be willing to try it out if we’re still not sure how to use it?
At our last meeting there was some concern about the competencies being a standard that if the physician doesn’t adhere to they could be disciplined. One way to address that is to create the appendices as examples.
“Provide a common language and framework” – what is threatening about that?
In this past legislative session, the AARP mandated that the Board of Medicine to take on the responsibility for ensuring that all physicians had to meet this criteria. It was terrifying. The bill only failed by 4 votes. The flaw of unintended consequences is in the word ‘regulatory’. It strikes the fear of God into everyone’s heart to read that. If someone wants to use it that way, then they can, but we shouldn’t have it in there.
I have a hard time that this would happen.
The legislators aren’t as reasonable as you are.
Sometimes when there are problems maybe we can turn them into opportunities. Maybe we can educate legislators what is constructive about why we are all here. How do we turn this situation into an opportunity for dialogue?
We talked about the evolution of the document and said that the word ‘aspirational’ should be stated in it. We talked about self-regulation and the price is that we want to move ahead and we have to organize ourselves. You say that we were only 4 votes away from having some requirements thrust upon us. We can turn that around.
If we don’t define this with a strong statement on a national level, we’re going to have an ad hoc legislator doing it for us. We need to have the wherewithal and the stomach to do this right.
As someone who was intimately involved in presenting this to the Virginia General Assembly, it would have required two years of dialoguing with the physician community. We would have recognized that a significant number of them are grandfathered in and do not need any standard of competency. The board would be asked to ensure this process was carried out but they would also have the ability to define it and request the resources that were needed.
