|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
NT with the MFM Foundation - NT Program - overviewFrom: R Depp (Stork2001@comcast.net)Mon Sep 26 13:59:03 2005
No fault has been found with the FMF international group. They have done excellent work and are to be congratulated. The leaders of the FMF of America have been very instrumental in working with the MFMF, as well as leaders from the BUN trial, the FaSTER trial and others to develop and support this program. We have tried to involve academicians as well as clinicians outside the university to make sure that a balance is achieved. The only point missed is that in the MFMF program there are two points: 1) input by a large number of leaders in the field who have set down together and hammered out a common viewpoint - i.e. a consensus of US leaders and 2) being US based. We function in a time when there is value in working within a consensus which is reasonably well defined. This is not about politics - at least as far as I can determine. I do not perform NT. From all I can see after sitting in room for tens of hours as a facilitator for the groups - is a large group of very committed and idealistic individuals trying their best to do the right thing for the right reason. None of the members of the NT Oversight group appear to have a secondary gain – an issue addressed by conflict of interest statements completed by the Oversight group. Neither the SMFM nor the MFMF believe there will be any surplus revenue to arise from this effort. If you have a specific concern I would be pleased to respond. Best regards 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 -----Original Message----- From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of art fougner, md Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 1:37 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND Subject: Re: MFM Foundation - NT Program - overview 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
>is that this one was endorsed by ACOG and that it is based in the US
>of being international.
>
>Does that mean that ACOG found deficiencies in the International
>accreditation provided by FMF and tested over some ¼ million patients ?
>I missed a publication on the issue ?
>
>Thanks !
>
> _____
>
>From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
>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
>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
>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 (http://www.smfm.org <http://www.smfm.org/>
>in direct response to a recommendation by the ACOG (see their bulletin on
>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
>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
>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
>and as you indicated – for free.
>
>The SMFM, after considerable evaluation of the issue and after
>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
>complete soup to nuts credentialing including education and exam on the
>Foundation website (www.mfmf.org <http://www.mfmf.org/> ) without a need
>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.
>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.
>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,
>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
>the BUN trial, the FaSTER trial, or by the FMF, you may become
>at a significant discount without need for an exam, if you act by October
>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
>to give them money. They seem to be involved with quality assurance for NT
>measurements / 1st trimester screening. Does anyone have any experience
>this organization? Who does my money go to? Why should I give them money
>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
>
--
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ultrasound@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: terry.dubose@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 05:36:39 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.