An AAO COPE Poster of Interest 2022 meeting

[Paul Farkas]

 

[Paul Farkas]

I hope the various optometry state boards are taking this poster seriously.

Expand the allowable hours for on line live real time continuing education. Your ODs will thank you and the state consumers who you represent will thank you.

 

[Steve Silberberg]

If ARBO/COPE believes per their study the equivalence of online learning vs live how can the states not?

 

[Paul Farkas]

If ARBO/COPE believes per their study the equivalence of online learning vs live how can the states not?

Follow the money and your question will be answered.

 

[Michael W Ohlson]

I’m mainly upset because my name is spelled incorrectly. I told them. Michael W. Ohlson. Not that difficult. Alas.

 

[William R. Hall]

If ARBO/COPE believes per their study the equivalence of online learning vs live how can the states not?

Because in a state like NM the Board is looking out for the NMOA's interests.

 

[Steve Silberberg]

I’m mainly upset because my name is spelled incorrectly. I told them. Michael W. Ohlson. Not that difficult. Alas.

It taints the whole study IMHO

 

[Michael W Ohlson]

It taints the whole study IMHO

This whole thing is run by organized crime. There’s not enough air in the ball. My shoelaces were untied. The study was biased. My sample was contaminated. No one told me. My father never got me a pony. It’s not fair. I’m a victim.

The poster session is tomorrow. Some of the authors will attend. While not on the COPE Cmte or ARBO BoD, I was asked to assist. Free labor. No ‘h’ though.

Big mtg. Had fun with Gretchyn and Adam.

 

[Lloyd Pate]

This is better. What does it hold for the future? Hey Olson. They even spelled my name right. Where should we take tele-optometry from here?

 

[Michael W Ohlson]

This is better. What does it hold for the future? Hey Olson. They even spelled my name right. Where should we take tele-optometry from here?

Busy at Academy. Broad topic. Telemedicine is popular and profitable. Growing. Is it good medicine or real medicine? Hard to say. I think the convenience and money topics are overshadowing the good medicine part. When the results fundamentally exceed traditional efforts, you got something. When you address access problems, you got something. When the AI is biased, you got problems. When it’s not about patients, you got problems.

 

[Lloyd Pate]

Busy at Academy. Broad topic. Telemedicine is popular and profitable. Growing. Is it good medicine or real medicine? Hard to say. I think the convenience and money topics are overshadowing the good medicine part. When the results fundamentally exceed traditional efforts, you got something. When you address access problems, you got something. When the AI is biased, you got problems. When it’s not about patients, you got problems.

I helped start it for patients.

 

[Michael W Ohlson]

This is the actual poster. Big meeting with record attendance. Long, though. Past time to be home.

 

[h.c. jang]

This is better. What does it hold for the future? Hey Olson. They even spelled my name right. Where should we take tele-optometry from here?

This study is obviously not as good. There's only 6 authors.

 

[Lloyd Pate]

This study is obviously not as good. There's only 6 authors.

Yep, and one doesn't even have a PhD. Can't be any good.

 

[Richard Hom]

In response to the statistical rigor of the Pate (2022) poster, the endpoint determines the relevance and value in comparing "live, in-person" vs. "live-distance-learning." The responses are self-reported. There is also an issue of whether the respondents who participated in the live interactive had also participated in the "linve-in-person" courses.

I believe that self-reported studies build hypotheses for further "higher-evidence" studies. This should not be the conclusive studiy about the value of in-person live vs in-person-distance.

 

[h.c. jang]

Yep, and one doesn't even have a PhD. Can't be any good.

Yes, I did notice the letter count after the names. But the other study had a couple of names with no letters so I thought it was a wash.

Lloyd, can you link your study? I’m interested in reading it.

 

[Michael W Ohlson]

In response to the statistical rigor of the Pate (2022) poster, the endpoint determines the relevance and value in comparing "live, in-person" vs. "live-distance-learning." The responses are self-reported. There is also an issue of whether the respondents who participated in the live interactive had also participated in the "linve-in-person" courses.

I believe that self-reported studies build hypotheses for further "higher-evidence" studies. This should not be the conclusive studiy about the value of in-person live vs in-person-distance.

There is need for much study. In the case of optometry, there is very little data. In the case of medicine, efforts are ongoing. Gap analysis, needs assessments, educational plans, physician learning, active learning, accreditation to assure lack of bias and improve CE providers… this is lifelong effort, not a flipped switch.

Optometry is probably 25 years behind on average in terms of CE development. We tend much toward mtg planners rather than educators and industry support rather than addressing gaps in knowledge, performance, and pt outcomes. The major groups fought against CE standards. So…

This topic bores most ODs. We’re accustomed to seat time and ticket punching. It’s what we know.

There is a little mojo to try to catch up. Not much. Some.

 

[AdminWolf]

Optometry is probably 25 years behind on average in terms of CE development. We tend much toward mtg planners rather than educators and industry support rather than addressing gaps in knowledge, performance, and pt outcomes. The major groups fought against CE standards. So…

Industry has a hard time wrapping their heads around CE that isn't primarily "industry supported".

When I met with companies at expo, some were shocked by the model. (I told them it would be great to have them participate, but whether or not they do, the "show will go on".

This sort of independence is only possible when people pay for their own CE. I feel strongly about this business model ("you get what you pay for" is an expression for a reason.)

 

[Michael W Ohlson]

Industry has a hard time wrapping their heads around CE that isn't primarily "industry supported". When I met with companies at expo, some were shocked by the model. (I told them it would be great to have them participate, but whether or not they do, the "show will go on". This sort of independence is only possible when people pay for their own CE. I feel strongly about this business model ("you get what you pay for" is an expression for a reason.)

Sitting on tarmac in San Diego. Three hr flight. Three hr drive. Yay.

To further complicate the issue, some accredited CME and CE providers need enemas. Or to be corrected. Their choice.

I’m not in denial over the associated problems. It’s discouraging. We push forward. The other options are cynicism, ignorance, and whining. But, it’s anger-producing.

Nice to see you.

 

[Michael W Ohlson]

Addendum: In a very human fashion, ODs overreact at times.

The SFC Report of 2007 didn’t negate commercial support of CME. It demanded that medicine clean up its act or someone else could/would assist. Doctors take federal reimbursement.

It’s easy for me to detect bias in CE due to years of efforts. No special ability other than experience and work. I’m sure I get fooled at times, though.

Most HCPs strongly deny influence, but study after study refutes that belief. A pen can alter prescribing habits. Odd, but true.

The mildly humorous to just plain weird actions to avoid disclosing industry support prior to lectures… why would one feel the need to do that? That action tells the tale.

Long way to go. We’re decades behind. Most don’t care. Life is like that.