Society for Pediatric Research Perspective on Maintenance of Certification

1. Society for Pediatric Research:
Perspective on Maintenance of
Certification
February 2016

2. SPR Perspective and Guiding Principles
The SPR is committed to:
• excellence in the clinical care of children and supports programs
that will assure that diplomates with limited clinical effort
maintain the highest standards.
• continued medical education, clinical excellence, professional self-
regulation, and continued improvement of the quality of health
care for children.
The SPR supports the missions of the American Board of Pediatrics
(ABP) and the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS); however,
there is concern that some current MOC requirements are beyond the
scope of the ABP mission.

3. SPR Perspective and Guiding Principles
• The SPR understands and acknowledges the ABP has
made some recent changes to the current MOC (since
February 2015), and the SPR appreciates that the ABP
is open to continued modifications.
• Despite some changes to MOC, the SPR supports a
rigorous assessment of the current state of MOC done
by a committee that broadly represents practicing
pediatricians including community pediatricians,
subspecialty societies, research societies and
academic departments.

4. MOC and Conflict of Interest
• The SPR is concerned that:
• There is not an adequate system for identifying or managing potential
fiduciary conflict of interest. We advocate for establishment of guidelines to
define and manage COI in a manner transparent to all ABP Diplomates.
• The current system is maintained and implemented solely by the ABP, a
nonprofit organization positioned to realize substantial financial benefit
directly from expansion of MOC related activities.
• Individuals and groups that have received income via contributing to or selling
MOC activities are not required to disclose a potential conflict of interest
when advocating for the current MOC system.

5. The SPR membership survey- MOC process
• High physician burden associated with participation in MOC.
• SPR members feel that participation is unnecessarily cumbersome and
expensive.
• The physician/clinician scientist is increasingly burdened by activities that do
not directly contribute to improved medical knowledge or improved clinical
performance.
• The SPR supports measures to make the work of our members effective and
efficient.

6. The SPR membership survey – Part 2 MOC :
• Many SPR members find low value in Part 2 MOC activities
due to the restriction of choices, especially for subspecialists.
• The SPR is concerned that there is not adequate justification
for the restrictive list of approved Part 2 MOC activities.
• It is currently difficult to receive Part 2 MOC credits for
activities deemed to be of high value to a large academic
pediatric community, such as giving a state of the art lecture
about a clinical topic at the PAS meeting or other such similar
activities.

7. SPR Membership Survey- Part 4 MOC:
• The SPR has many ongoing serious concerns about Part 4
MOC and currently supports making it an optional activity.
• There is a perceived low benefit to the activities.
• There continues to be low relevance of the available activities in many
specialties.
• Most of our members already have QI initiative requirements outside of MOC,
and many of these are perceived to be more relevant because they are locally
implemented and/or more flexible than the current Part 4 MOC structure.
• So far, the perception is that the shift towards institutional implementation of
the ABP MOC Part 4 Program has NOT made these activities less cumbersome
or more relevant or more valuable.
• The requirement by the ABP for activities perceived to be of little value should
be suspended until an evaluation is completed.

8. SPR Perspective – Part 4 MOC
• The SPR does not currently support the idea that Part 4 MOC might
be expanded to include projects aimed at improving the “Quality of
Research”. This is not within the purview of the ABP.
• Although the SPR and its members are deeply interested in improving
the quality and reproducibility of research, MOC activities to improve
research do not need to be mandated by the ABP. It is essential that
the ABP focus on activities that will help diplomates to be the best
possible clinicians.