Evaluation of the tumor board as a Continuing Medical Education (CME) activity: Is it useful?

Maryclare Sarff, Wendy Rogers, Charles Blanke, John T. Vetto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Scopus citations


Background. Although it has been previously reported that offering continuing medical education (CME) credit is not a major factor in tumor board attendance, the results/utility of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education mandated evaluations of those tumor boards offering CME credit has not been studied. Methods. We reviewed the CME evaluations of our University Gastrointestinal Tumor Board; this meeting was chosen because it is multidisciplinary, well attended, and offers CME credit contingent on completing a standard CME evaluation form each session. Results. Of the 2736 attendees, 660 (24%) at the 79 consecutive conferences studied completed the evaluation for CME credit. Reported satisfaction was high; the average response on the 4-question satisfaction survey was 5 (Excellent) on a 5-point Likert scale, only 6% of attendees perceived any commercial bias, and only 3 attendees stated that the conference did not achieve the stated objectives. Of the respondents, 42% indicated that the tumor board information would change their practice, although few specific examples were given. A minority of responders provided specific feedback. Conclusions. A minority of attendees at this tumor board utilized CME credit. Although satisfaction and impact ratings were high, potential response set bias, lack of specific feedback, and nonresponse bias were limitations to the evaluations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)51-56
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Cancer Education
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2008

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of the tumor board as a Continuing Medical Education (CME) activity: Is it useful?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this