conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What could be a title for a book about Distinctive, ASCRS, Moreover with the genre: New, Used & Rental Textbooks, Medicine & Health Sciences?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: A title for this book could be 'The ASCRS Textbook of Colon and Rectal Surgery'
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: the first five paragraphs for this book
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The ASCRS Textbook of Colon and Rectal Surgery
  Your deposition may be a videotaped deposition. The party who schedules the deposition will give notice of whether he intends to videotape it. Be sure you know whether it will be videotaped and dress and present yourself accordingly. In your practice, you wear your lab coat, with physician designation. This may or may not be appropriate when presenting yourself for deposition. One issue you will want to discuss with your attorney in advance is what to wear.
  The use of videotaped depositions is becoming more prevalent in recent years. I've never thought it necessary for a physician to wear a lab coat in deposition; however, my opinion on this is changing. Jurors are patients. Patients have an expectation of what physicians look like. The videotaping of depositions has two purposes: to intimidate the witness, and to present a video record to the jury at trial. You are a doctor. You have the extensive education, experience, and license to justify your use of the title, "Doctor." Wearing your lab coat at deposition provides an ongoing reminder to the audience or jury that you have earned and maintained that status, and that your testimony should be considered and weighed, accordingly. Being a doctor doesn't necessarily make you more believable; but it should add weight to your learned observations and opinions.
  It is unlikely that you will be asked to wear your lab coat at trial. The stark difference between your appearance in a lab coat at deposition and in a suit and tie at trial may make your appearance at deposition seem staged. The decision whether to wear your lab coat, or any other questions regarding your presentation and attire, should be discussed with your attorney. In all cases, you should present yourself in business attire.
  A deposition is a "legal," "formal" interview. The legality of the process is established by local rules of procedure. Foremost among them is that prior to beginning testimony, the court reporter, who is a designated officer of the court for this purpose, administers the oath. The words may vary, but the upshot is that you are being asked to swear or affirm that the answers you are about to give in deposition "are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..." (Notably, the attorneys who are asking the questions aren't under oath. However, as the deposition is in the realm of judicial proceedings, rules of professional conduct oblige attorneys not to make material misrepresentations of fact or law at deposition.)
  At the conclusion of the deposition, a transcript of the deposition will be prepared by the court reporter. It will look like a script. The questioner will be identified, and a verbatim transcript of the question will appear. The question will be followed on the page with your answer. You will be provided with a copy of the transcript. Within the parameters of your jurisdiction's procedural rules , you will have the opportunity to review the transcript and to make any changes to your answers which you believe are necessary to accurately reflect your testimony. (You may not make changes to the questions, although you may note typographical or transcription errors.) Your changes may be to form or substance.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: four more paragraphs
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The MOC Committee of the ABCRS is considering changes to the MOC program based in part on the practices of other Boards who have piloted innovative models for their MOC programs as well as feedback from ABCRS diplomates. There is a good deal of interest in a modular-type Part III examination , in which each diplomate completes a central module common to all examinees, but then may choose two to three modules from a range of three to five of specialty content. Another novel way to manage Part III would be to have each diplomate complete a set number of secure multiple-choice questions annually with more timely feedback rather than 200 every 10 years. The questions would be accessible on line for a set time period and feedback would include the answer, keypoints, a critique, references, and a link to provide feedback on the questions. The diplomat would also be asked to evaluate the confidence of their answer which could be used summatively by the candidate to identify gaps in their knowledge. This should allow for more intensive longitudinal assessment and targeted self-directed Part II learning activities, and could lead to Part IV involvement with direct applicability to one's practice. Ongoing involvement in learning, practice improvement, and quality activities requiring less dedicated time per episode, along with clear application to one's practice, may provide diplomates with more accessible and meaningful ways to manage their MOC needs.
  In Canada and the United Kingdom, the processes that parallel our MOC program are mandatory for physicians to practice. Some interesting lessons may be learned from examination of these processes and their history. The Canadian process involved Fellows (the equivalent of Diplomates) early during the program's design, and continues to do so. All Fellows are automatically registered in the MOC program of the Royal College and are required to meet all of the requirements to maintain the designation Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada (FRCPC) or Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada (FRCSC). All provincial licensing boards require active participation in MOC to maintain licensure. Fellows must complete a minimum number of credits in each 5-year cycle, which are entered into an online database maintained by the College. Credits are self-reported in one of six areas and classified by the competency that is addressed. This must be supported by documentation, of which a portion must be sent in annually to the College. Each year a random sample of Fellows are audited for complete documentation. The recommendation of the Royal College Council to not include a secure exam as part of the process has been repeatedly supported by fellows, national specialty societies, and medical educators since the early 1970s [40]. At the present time Canadian Fellows involved in MOC through the Royal College can submit their MOC reports from the Royal College to the ABCRS for MOC credit. However, they are also required to take the ABCRS MOC examination to complete ABCRS recertification.
  The process in the United Kingdom is not a system developed by doctors for doctors, but rather a "centralized system using employer (National Health Service) to employee (physician) relations to ensure accountability" [41]. The UK system is compulsory for all doctors who wish to practice in the UK, including doctors in training, in public or private practice, and those visiting the UK and practicing medicine. The system consists of the Good Medical Practice guidelines, which supply the core ethical guidance for UK medical practitioners, and Fitness to Practice, which incorporates general medical knowledge and skills along with elements of professionalism which "may include matters not directly related to professional practice." The main areas of scrutiny are professional standing and professionalism, in part due to several high-profile medical scandals in the past decade. There is no required specialty knowledge test that parallels the MOC examination.
  At the present time, board certification and MOC is voluntary in the USA. Realistically, however, many hospitals require board certification for granting hospital privileges. In many fields of practice, a lack of certification leads to lower earning power [14]. In the future, participation in MOC may become a mandatory component for continued licensure and privileging. As a professional group we need to set the standards of our own educational assessment and evaluation. We must maintain the social contract with the public where there is a collective social trust with the expectation of self-management. The administration of MOC must remain under the control of physicians at the specialty Board level to avoid takeover by an external body who may develop a process that is more onerous, with a foreign agenda and little relevance to the practicing physician. The Boards themselves must evolve from simply developers and administrators of tests to organizations engaged in quality assessment and quality improvement.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Reverse the sentences.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The Boards themselves must evolve from simply developers and administrators of tests to organizations engaged in quality assessment and quality improvement.. The administration of MOC must remain under the control of physicians at the specialty Board level to avoid takeover by an external body who may develop a process that is more onerous, with a foreign agenda and little relevance to the practicing physician. We must maintain the social contract with the public where there is a collective social trust with the expectation of self-management. As a professional group we need to set the standards of our own educational assessment and evaluation. In the future, participation in MOC may become a mandatory component for continued licensure and privileging. In many fields of practice, a lack of certification leads to lower earning power [14]. Realistically, however, many hospitals require board certification for granting hospital privileges.
  At the present time, board certification and MOC is voluntary in the USA. There is no required specialty knowledge test that parallels the MOC examination." The main areas of scrutiny are professional standing and professionalism, in part due to several high-profile medical scandals in the past decade. The system consists of the Good Medical Practice guidelines, which supply the core ethical guidance for UK medical practitioners, and Fitness to Practice, which incorporates general medical knowledge and skills along with elements of professionalism which "may include matters not directly related to professional practice. The UK system is compulsory for all doctors who wish to practice in the UK, including doctors in training, in public or private practice, and those visiting the UK and practicing medicine.
  The process in the United Kingdom is not a system developed by doctors for doctors, but rather a "centralized system using employer (National Health Service) to employee (physician) relations to ensure accountability" [41]. However, they are also required to take the ABCRS MOC examination to complete ABCRS recertification. At the present time Canadian Fellows involved in MOC through the Royal College can submit their MOC reports from the Royal College to the ABCRS for MOC credit. The recommendation of the Royal College Council to not include a secure exam as part of the process has been repeatedly supported by fellows, national specialty societies, and medical educators since the early 1970s [40]. Each year a random sample of Fellows are audited for complete documentation. This must be supported by documentation, of which a portion must be sent in annually to the College. Credits are self-reported in one of six areas and classified by the competency that is addressed. Fellows must complete a minimum number of credits in each 5-year cycle, which are entered into an online database maintained by the College. All provincial licensing boards require active participation in MOC to maintain licensure. All Fellows are automatically registered in the MOC program of the Royal College and are required to meet all of the requirements to maintain the designation Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada (FRCPC) or Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada (FRCSC). The Canadian process involved Fellows (the equivalent of Diplomates) early during the program's design, and continues to do so. Some interesting lessons may be learned from examination of these processes and their history.
  In Canada and the United Kingdom, the processes that parallel our MOC program are mandatory for physicians to practice. Ongoing involvement in learning, practice improvement, and quality activities requiring less dedicated time per episode, along with clear application to one's practice, may provide diplomates with more accessible and meaningful ways to manage their MOC needs. This should allow for more intensive longitudinal assessment and targeted self-directed Part II learning activities, and could lead to Part IV involvement with direct applicability to one's practice. The diplomat would also be asked to evaluate the confidence of their answer which could be used summatively by the candidate to identify gaps in their knowledge. The questions would be accessible on line for a set time period and feedback would include the answer, keypoints, a critique, references, and a link to provide feedback on the questions. Another novel way to manage Part III would be to have each diplomate complete a set number of secure multiple-choice questions annually with more timely feedback rather than 200 every 10 years. There is a good deal of interest in a modular-type Part III examination , in which each diplomate completes a central module common to all examinees, but then may choose two to three modules from a range of three to five of specialty content.The MOC Committee of the ABCRS is considering changes to the MOC program based in part on the practices of other Boards who have piloted innovative models for their MOC programs as well as feedback from ABCRS diplomates
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: the last five paragraphs
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Medical Group Management Association. Available online at: http://​www.​mgma.​com. Last accessed April 2015.
  American Medical Group Association. Available online at: http://​www.​agma.​com. Last accessed April 2015.
  AGMA Research and Benchmarking. Physician Compensation 2012 Colorectal Surgery. Available online at: http://​cejka.​force.​com/​physiciancompens​ation. Last Accessed April 2015.
  American College of Surgeons Practice Management CPT Coding Workshops. Available online at: https://​www.​facs.​org/​advocacy/​practmanagement/​workshops#sthash.​PHs5VNhi.​dpuf. Last accessed April 2015.
  American College of Medical Practice Executives Professional Paper. The Impact of Physician Practice Acquisition on Practice Managers. 2013. Available online at: http://​www.​mgma.​com/​Libraries/​Assets/​Practice%20​Resources/​Publications/​Fellow%20​Papers/​2013/​The-Impact-of-Physician-Practice-Acquisition-on-Practice-Managers-manuscript-1.​pdf?​ext=​.​pdf. Last accessed April 2015.