Considerations in the relationship between the American College of Chest Physicians and industry.

I would like to thank Dr. Varkey for his insightful comments. I will attempt to address the comments in the sequence in which they were offered. I am pleased that Dr. Varkey found the meeting intellectually and personally satisfying, as Richard Irwin, MD, FCCP (the Scientific Program Chair), the Scientific Program Committee, and the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) staff made considerable effort to ensure these attributes. In addition, attendees submitted evaluation forms in order to receive their continuing medical education (CME) certificates, and some of the highlights noted on the evaluations include the following: 93% of respondents thought it was a valuable experience; 90.4% thought the educational content was very high; 91.6% thought the quality of the speakers was excellent; 88.7% thought there was adequate time for the exhibit hall; and 87.5% thought the exhibitors provided relevant information. Overall, the attendees thought that CHEST 2000 was a worthwhile event and that it met their needs. This is very gratifying, since the focus of the ACCP is and always has been on educational excellence and constant improvement. Regarding the CHEST 2000 name badges, as I am responsible to a great extent for the perception of the College, I apologize to Dr. Varkey and all of the attendees, as the badges were neither what we had planned nor envisioned. I can assure you that under my watch, this action will not be repeated, and we will be more sensitive to all items that might be perceived to affect the image of the College and its members. One item that Dr. Varkey did not mention but was mentioned several times in the evaluations and discussed at the Scientific Program Committee meeting for CHEST 2001 was the “vision wall” that was located at the bottom of the escalators. Although this year it was located at the entry to the exhibit hall, this was also the main entrance to the meeting rooms. Next year, we are looking to have this wall outside the exhibit hall, and although one would pass it going to sessions, it will not be on the same floor as the scientific sessions. But more importantly, instead of a single sponsor’s advertisement, the principal content will be information about the meeting, the College, and The CHEST Foundation, interspersed with industry sponsor information from four to six sponsors. In order to address Dr. Varkey’s points regarding satellite symposia, it is important to first explain the process of being accredited to provide CME. The current guidelines and requirements of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) are defined as 10 elements in three essential areas (and can be viewed on-line at www.accme. org/sec_acc_sta.html). Essential Area 1: Purpose and Mission Element 1.1: Mission Element 1.2: Parent Organization Essential Area 2: Education Planning and Evaluation Element 2.1: Planning Processes Element 2.2: Needs Assessment Element 2.3: Purpose and Objectives Element 2.4: Activity Evaluation Element 2.5: Program Evaluation Essential Area 3: Administration Element 3.1: Organizational Framework Element 3.2: Business and Management Practices Element 3.3: Disclosure and Commercial Support Standards The mission of the ACCME is the identification, development, and promotion of standards for quality CME utilized by physicians in their maintenance of competence and incorporation of new knowledge to improve quality medical care for patients and their communities. The ACCME fulfills its mission through a voluntary self-regulated system for accrediting CME providers and a peer-review process responsive to changes in medical education and the health-care delivery system. *From the American College of Chest Physicians, Northbrook, IL. Manuscript received January 2,2001; accepted January 5, 2001. Correspondence to: Alvin Lever, MA, FCCP(Hon), American College of Chest Physicians, 3300 Dundee Rd, Northbrook, IL 60062; alever@chestnet.org