Re: MFM Foundation - NT Program - overview
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Mon Sep 26 12:36:30 2005
Philippe
All politics is local *wink*
Art
At Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Philippe Jeanty, MD, PhD wrote:
>
>I am not sure I understand this well. If I read this properly, the
>difference between this new accreditation an the international accreditation
>is that this one was endorsed by ACOG and that it is based in the US instead
>of being international.
>
>Does that mean that ACOG found deficiencies in the International
>accreditation provided by FMF and tested over some ¼ million patients ? Have
>I missed a publication on the issue ?
>
>Thanks !
>
> _____
>
>From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
>stork2001@comcast.net
>Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 11:06 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
>Subject: MFM Foundation - NT Program - overview
>
>David:
>
>I tried to respond also to the ultrasound@obgyn.net, but would have to join
>to have it go through. I would appreciate if you would send or post my
>message to you there so that others like you would have an opportunity to
>view my response to you.
>
>Thanks very much for your attention and anticipated help.
>
>Richard Depp,
>
>>>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>David
>
>I am taking the liberty of responding to an email you sent out to a listing,
>which was forwarded to me via a circuitous route. I thought it might help
>if I responded, if even briefly.
>
>The MFM Foundation (MFMF) is a new foundation originally initiated by the
>Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (www.smfm.org <http://www.smfm.org/> )
>in direct response to a recommendation by the ACOG (see their bulletin on NT
>or first trimester risk assessment) that NT should only be done within a
>framework of quality review. The MFMF functions largely via advice from a
>large multi-disciplinary NT Oversight committee that includes a large number
>of clinicians with significant experience in NT and first trimester risk
>assessment.
>
>The MFM Foundation is now independent of the SMFM, but has been able to
>build this program via support by the SMFM and donations by Board members
>and members of the NTOC sizable in both dollar amount and lost opportunity
>costs. Each member of the NTOC has contributed hundreds of personal
>discretionary hours to the process – so called “lost opportunity” costs for
>them as an indication of their commitment and their interpretation of the
>importance of this effort.
>
>One point is relevant to state upfront - The FMF has indeed done a good job
>and as you indicated – for free.
>
>The SMFM, after considerable evaluation of the issue and after considerable
>consultation with so-called experts in the field, has taken the tact that
>there should be a Quality review organization that meets two criteria - 1)
>based in the US and 2) has an oversight group (NTOC) that is diverse, and
>broad based that can represent all parties interested in the issue,
>including OB-GYNs, MFMs, radiologists and non-physician sonographers that
>can respond to the issues of clinical providers in the US.
>
>The MFM Foundation’s – NT Education and Quality Review program allows for
>complete soup to nuts credentialing including education and exam on the MFM
>Foundation website (www.mfmf.org <http://www.mfmf.org/> ) without a need to
>attend an out of town meeting. The educational content has been hammered
>out by a large consensus group over several months and the exam linked to
>the content is also one reviewed by the same oversight committee.
>
>We also believe that this NT program is an important opportunity to
>demonstrate that American physicians can review / monitor themselves. We
>believe this is something that Is coming down the pike and that we would
>prefer that physicians lead the process. The laboratories have the CAP
>(College of Pathologists) process for the review of clinical laboratory
>functions.
>
>Like you, I don’t want to belong to another society or organization. Any
>revenue generated by this program will go to covering the very significant
>start-up costs and on-going maintenance. Even with our most optimistic
>projections, we are unlikely to break even within the next 3 years, despite
>all the volunteer time we have received.
>
>We believe this is a big step forward for perinatal medicine and will have
>significant benefits to all involved, including our patients. So far,
>almost 1200 have either completed or are in the process of being
>credentialed by the NT program. If you have been previously credentialed by
>the BUN trial, the FaSTER trial, or by the FMF, you may become credentialed
>at a significant discount without need for an exam, if you act by October 1,
>2005.
>
>I hope that you find this information of interest. You can gather more
>information at www.mfmf.org <http://www.mfmf.org/>
>
>rd
>
>Richard Depp, MD
>Exec. VP, Society for Mat. Fetal Medicine
>
>President, Maternal Fetal Medicine Foundation
>1280 Club House Road
>Gladwyne, PA 19035-1003
>610-527-6294
>
>From: Dave Berck <djberck@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: ultrasound@obgyn.net
>To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND <ultrasound@dns.obgyn.net>
>Subject: Maternal Fetal Medicine Foundation
>Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:16:07 -0500
>
>I have just been invited to join the Maternal Fetal Medicine Foundation and
>to give them money. They seem to be involved with quality assurance for NT
>measurements / 1st trimester screening. Does anyone have any experience with
>this organization? Who does my money go to? Why should I give them money to
>do something the FMF and NTD labs do for free? I'm trying to justify
>membership in yet another organization. Thanks.
>
>--
>Dave Berck, MD, MPH
>
>David J. Berck, MD, MPH
>
--
art fougner, md
"If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else."
Lawrence Peter Berra
