Background Material for December 7 Conference Call - Alliance for ...

Memorandum 

To: 

AIM Program Planning Committee 

Brian L. David Timothy J. Heffer 

Donna R. Devine Patty McCarroll 

Joe Doty, Chair Amit Prachand 

Amy Elliott 

Lisa Runco 

Ed Fink 

Neil J. Silver 

Joe Gough 

Steve Vinciguerra 

Marc Halman Robert E. Young 

From: Kyle J. Hayden, AIM Meetings Coordinator 

Re: 

Background material for Monday, December 7, conference call 

Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 

On behalf of the Administrators of Internal Medicine (AIM), thank you for serving on the 

AIM Program Planning Committee. 

The AIM Program Planning Committee will hold its first conference call Monday, 

December 7, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. It is my 

understanding that everyone except Mr. David and Mr. Heffer is available to join me for 

this call. If your availability has changed, please contact me at your earliest possible 

convenience. 

During this call, the committee should plan to: 

 

 

 

 

Confirm representatives for the Academic Internal Medicine Week 2010 task 

forces. 

Discuss the format for the 31st Annual AIM Educational Conference. 

Review the evaluation results from the 30th Annual AIM Educational Conference. 

Discuss potential plenary ideas for the 31st Annual AIM Educational Conference. 

To improve the call’s timeliness, participants should dial into the conference call. To 

participate: 

1. Contact Chorus Call at (800) 882-3610 at 1:55 p.m. EST. 

2. If calling from Canada, contact Chorus Call at (866) 605-3851. 

3. To join the call, please follow the voice prompts and enter the association’s 

code: 0614054. 

As a reminder, the committee will hold its next conference call Monday, January 4, 2010, 

from 2:00 p.m. EST to 3:00 p.m. EST. 

Again, thank you. If you have questions or comments about the conference call, the 

background material, or the committee, please contact me at (202) 861-9351 or 

khayden@im.org at your convenience.


Conference Call 

Monday, December 7, 2009 

2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST 

Agenda 

Tab 1 

Tab 2 

Tab 3 

Tab 4 

Tab 5 

Tab 6 

Welcome and introductions 

Discuss the planning timeline 

Decide on representatives to AAIM and AIM planning task forces 

Discuss format for 31st Annual AIM Educational Conference 

Review evaluation summaries from 30th Annual AIM Educational Conference and 

2009 AIM Precourse for New Administrators 

Brainstorm for meeting theme and plenary session ideas for 31st Annual AIM 

Educational Conference 

Discuss other issues


(July 1, 2009-June 30, 2011) 

Committee Roster 

Brian L. David 

Department Administrator 

Department of Medicine 

Columbia University 

College of Physicians and Surgeons 

630 West 168th Street 

Box 30 

PHB East 105 

New York, NY 10032 

Telephone: (212) 305-8811 

Fax: (212) 305-9822 

Email: bld2116@columbia.edu 

Donna R. Devine 

Director 


University of Washington School of Medicine 

Box 356420 

1959 NE Pacific Street 

HSB-RR512 

Seattle, WA 98195-6420 

Telephone: (206) 543-3293 

Fax: (206) 543-3947 

Email: ddevine@u.washington.edu 

Joe Doty, Chair 

Department Administrator 


Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine 

251 East Huron Street 

Galter Pavilion, Suite 3-150 

Chicago, IL 60611-2908 

Telephone: (312) 926-4996 

Fax: (312) 926-0239 

Email: joe-doty@northwestern.edu 

Amy Elliott 

Division Administrator 

Division of Nephrology 

Department of Internal Medicine 

Ohio State University Medical Center 

395 W. 12th Avenue 

Ground Floor 

Columbus, OH 43204 

Telephone: (614) 293-4997 

Fax: (614) 293-3073 

Email: amy.elliott@osumc.edu 

Ed Fink 

Director, Decision Support and Planning 


University of California, San Diego 

School of Medicine 

9500 Gilman Drive, #0857 

La Jolla, CA 92093 

Telephone: (858) 534-8778 

Fax: (858) 822-6917 

Email: ejfink@ucsd.edu 

John Joseph Gough 

Operations Manager 


Medical University of South Carolina 

96 Jonathan Lucas Street 

803CSB 

PO Box 250623 

Charleston, SC 29425 

Telephone: (843) 792-2524 

Fax: (843) 792-5265 

Email: goughj@musc.edu 

Marc Halman 

Vice Chair and Chief Administrative Officer 


University of Miami Leonard M. Miller 

School of Medicine 

PO Box 01670 (R-61) 

1430 Northwest 11th Avenue 

Suite 1001 

Miami, FL 33101 

Telephone: (305) 243-2278 

Fax: (305) 243-9124 

Email: mhalman@med.miami.edu 

Timothy J. Heffer 

Chief Financial Officer and Senior Department 

Administrator 


University of Rochester 

School of Medicine and Dentistry 

601 Elmwood Avenue 

Box MED 

Rochester, NY 14642 

Telephone: (585) 275-8838 

Fax: (585) 442-3695 

Email: timothy_heffer@urmc.rochester.edu

Patty McCarroll 

Administrator 


University of Texas Health Science Center at San 

Antonio 

7703 Floyd Curl Drive 

Mail Code 7870 

San Antonio, TX 78229-3900 

Telephone: (210) 567-4804 

Fax: (210) 567-6718 

Email: mccarroll@uthscsa.edu 

Amit Prachand 


Division of Hospital Medicine 


Northwestern Memorial Hospital 

259 E Erie St 

Suite 475 

Chicago, IL 60611 

Telephone: (312) 926-7336 

Email: aprachan@nmh.org 

Lisa Runco 

Administrator 


University of Nebraska College of Medicine 

983332 Nebraska Medical Center 

Omaha, NE 68198-3332 

Telephone: (402) 559-7499 

Fax: (402) 559-6114 

Email: lrunco@unmc.edu 

Neil J. Silver 


Division of General Internal Medicine 


New York University School of Medicine 

550 First Avenue 

OBV A620 

New York, NY 10016 

Telephone: (212) 263-2575 

Fax: (212) 263-8788 

Email: neil.silver@med.nyu.edu 


Administrator 

Division of Cardiology 



135 Rutledge Avenue 

PO Box 250592 

Charleston, SC 29425 

Telephone: (843) 876-4759 

Email: vincigus@musc.edu 

Robert E. Young 


Division of Nephrology 


University of Virginia School of Medicine 

Box 800133 

Charlottesville, VA 22908 

Telephone: (434) 243-5718 

Fax: (434) 924-5848 

Email: by2p@virginia.edu

Timeline for Planning the 31st Annual AIM Educational Conference 

December 2009 

January 2010 

February 2010 

March 2010 

April 2010 

May 2010 

June 2010 

Finalize representatives to planning task forces 

Review evaluation summaries from 30th Annual AIM Educational Conference 

and 2009 AIM Precourse for New Administrators 

Brainstorm plenary topics and speakers for 31st Annual AIM Educational 

Conference 

Discuss possible formats for educational conference schedule 

Plenary planning continues 

Planning begins for precourses 

Joint plenary session planning begins 

Workshop task force reviews submission form 

Discuss preliminary agenda with AIM Board of Directors 

Planning continues (plenary task force sends initial speaker invitations) 

Precourse planning continues 

Call for workshops distributed at beginning of the month 

Abstract task force reviews submission form and determines rating scale and 

review criteria 

Planning continues (plenary speakers and session titles finalized) 

Precourse planning continues (speakers invited and session titles finalized) 

Abstract task force determines rating anchors 

Finalize any items remaining for plenary sessions or precourses 

Joint plenary session speakers and title finalized 

Submit draft agenda to AIM Board of Directors for approval 

Call for abstracts distributed at the beginning of the month 

Workshop task force reviews and selects workshops 

Finalize any items remaining for workshops 

Review and select abstracts for poster presentation 

Meeting planning complete 

Registration material complete 

Registration material distributed

AIM and AAIM Task Forces 

AIM Plenary Planning Task Force 

Leader: 

Members: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Charge: Plan the plenary sessions (including topics, titles, and placement in the agenda) and invite speakers for the 

31st Annual AIM Educational Conference. 

AIM Precourse Task Force 

Leader: 

Members: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Charge: Plan the precourse sessions (including topics, titles, and placement in the agenda) and invite speakers for 

the 2009 AIM Precourse for New Administrators. Determine if AIM should have a precourse for experienced 

administrators. 

AIM Abstract Review Task Force 

Leader: 

Members: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Charge: Work with the other alliance associations’ abstract reviewers to approve the Academic Internal Medicine 

Week 2010 abstract submission form, generate the rating scale and criteria for abstract review, review all AIM 

abstracts, and select the abstracts to be presented as posters. 

AAIM Workshop Review Task Force 

Leader: 

Members: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Charge: Work with the other task force members to approve the Academic Internal Medicine Week 2010 

workshop submission form, review all Academic Internal Medicine Week 2010 workshop submissions, select 

workshops for the joint workshop session, and select workshops for the 31st Annual AIM Educational Conference 

workshop sessions. 

AAIM Program Planning Task Force 

Members: 

1. Joe Doty 

2. 

Charge: Plan the AAIM joint lunch session (ensure topic and speakers would be of interest to AIM members) and 

invite speakers for the session.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 

30th Annual AIM Educational Conference 

(part of Academic Internal Medicine Week 2009) 

October 21-24, 2009 

Philadelphia Marriott Downtown 

Philadelphia, PA 

Agenda 

7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 

Franklin Foyer, Level Four 

8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

Room 411, Level Four 

9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. 


Registration 

AIM Precourse for New Administrators 

AIM Networking Reception 

Thursday, October 22, 2009 

7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Franklin Foyer, Level Four 

7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 

Salon A Foyer, Level Five 

Registration 

Breakfast 

8:00 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 

Salons AB, Level Five 

Catherine G. Wood 

AIM President 

8:15 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 


Plenary Session I 

Organization of Departments of Internal Medicine: Centers, 

Institutes, and Multidisciplinary Frameworks 

Lindsay J. Graham, Moderator 

Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University 

Paul E. Klotman, MD 

Mount Sinai School of Medicine 

William B. Applegate, MD 

Wake Forest University School of Medicine 

Max Wicha, MD 

University of Michigan Medical School 

10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 


Break

10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Workshop Session I 


101. Guideline Metrics for Determining Appropriate Administrative 

Staffing Levels (in Clinical, Research, and Educational Domains) 

Joe Gough 



Luis Rivera 

Mount Sinai Medical Center 


102. Empowering Data to Tell a Story—Two Approaches to Business 

Intelligence Tools and Dashboards 

Margaret L. Ealy 

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center 

Michael A. Zang 

Russ Dinsmore 


Elizabeth A. Wildman 



Room 303, Level Three 

12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. 

Salons CD, Level Five 

1:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. 


103. Preparing for the RRC-IM Site Visit 

Roya Ismail-Beigi 

Craig Nielsen, MD 

Cleveland Clinic Foundation 

104. Taking Over the Hospital: Hospitalists in the Academic 

Institution 

Holly Hammond 

Nathan J. O’Dorisio, MD 

Ohio State University College of Medicine 

Networking Lunch 

Break 

1:45 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. AIM Special Interest Group Meetings 


Chief Administrative Officers 

Brian L. David, Co-Moderator 

Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons 

Patty McCarroll, Co-Moderator 

University of Texas Medical School at San Antonio 

30th Annual AIM Educational Conference Agenda Page 2


Financial and Research Administrators 

Akankshi A. Arora, Co-Moderator 

University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine 

Jennifer L. Dickey, Co-Moderator 



Clinical Administrators 

Kevin McLaren, Co-Moderator 

University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine 

Valeda B. Dixon, Co-Moderator 

Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center 


Division Administrators (Procedural Specialties—Cardiology, 

Gastroenterology, Hematology and Oncology, Nephrology) 

Jeffrey R. Holden, Co-Moderator 

University of Michigan Medical School 

Robert E. Young, Co-Moderator 



Division Administrators (Non-Procedural Specialties—Allergy and 

Immunology, Endocrinology, General Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, 

Hepatology, Hospital Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Pulmonary and 

Critical Care, Rheumatology) 

3:45 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Free Time 

Teresa C. Carrothers, Co-Moderator 

University of Colorado School of Medicine 

Jeff Kunz, MD, Co-Moderator 

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health 

6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

Franklin Hall A, Level Four 

Academic Internal Medicine Week 2009 Welcome Reception 

Friday, October 23, 2009 

7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 


7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. 


Registration, Exhibits, and Cyber Café 

AAIM Breakfast 


8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Workshop Session II 





10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 


10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

Salons ABC, Level Five 

201. Gainsharing and Shortfall Agreements with Your Hospital: 

The Positives and the Pitfalls 

Lynell W. Klassen, MD 

Lisa Runco 

University of Nebraska Medical Center 

202. More than Employee Relations: A Case Study on Creating a 

Strategic Partnership with Human Resources to Optimize the 

Organization through Development of the Department’s Key 

Administrators 

Joe Doty 

Gretchen E. Nester 

Colleen Cullen 

Monique H.S. Gaines 


203. Using an EMR to Automate the Inpatient Medical Coding 

Process: Efficiency through Automation 

Valeda B. Dixon 

Stacy Alderman 

Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center 

204. The Journey to Medical Home 

Joanne Riley 

Deborah Simak 

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine 

Break and Exhibits 

Plenary Session II 

The APM Physician-Scientist Initiative: How to Promote the 

Initiative and Can Departments Afford It? 

Andrew I. Schafer, MD, Moderator 

Weill Medical College of Cornell University 



Mark L. Zeidel, MD 

Harvard Medical School Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center 

William J. Bremner, MD, PhD 





12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. AAIM Lunch and Joint Plenary Session 

Salons EF, Level Five 

AAIM and the Future of Academic Internal Medicine 

D. Craig Brater, MD, Moderator 

AAIM President 

David B. Nash, MD 

Jefferson School of Population Health 

2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Workshop Session III 




301. Challenges in Implementing a Web-Based Physician 

Scheduling System 

Karen Sniadecki 


302. Measuring and Motivating Physician Productivity Using 

Individual Profit and Loss Statements 



303. Comparing and Contrasting Medicine Departments—Three 

Administrators’ Perspectives 

Luis Rivera 


Joe Doty 



Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons 


304. Incentive Compensation Models by Specialty 

Deborah Winn-Horvitz 


3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Attend other AIMW09 sessions or free time 

3:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. AIM Committee Meetings (committee members only) 





6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 


Data Committee 

Member Services Committee 

Program Planning Committee 

Publications Committee 

AAIM Poster Reception 


Saturday, October 24, 2009 

7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 


7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 


Registration, Exhibits, and Cyber Café 

AAIM Breakfast 

8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. AAIM Joint Plenary Session 

Salons EF, Level Five 

Electronic Health Records in Education: State of the Art and Future 

Directions 

Joe Doty, Moderator 


Gary S. Ferenchick, MD 

Michigan State University College of Human Medicine 

David R. Donnersberger, Jr., MD, JD 

North Shore University Health System 

University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine 

Michael Zaroukian, MD, PhD 

Michigan State University College of Human Medicine 

10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 



10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. AAIM Joint Workshop Session 


101. A Brave New World: Professionalism and the Digital Age 

Darilyn V. Moyer, MD 

Susan Gersh, MD 

Temple University School of Medicine 

Jeanne M. Farnan, MD 

Shalini T. Reddy, MD 



102. Coordinator Consolidation: Achieving Collegial Compliance 

Diane Farineau 

Sally T. Miller 








Franklin Hall Eight, Level Four 

103. Creating a Curriculum Road Map 21st Century Style 

Leigh Burgess 

Diana B. McNeill, MD 

Murat Arcasoy, MD 

Aimee Zaas, MD 

Duke University School of Medicine 

104. Development of a Procedure Skills Rotation for Internal 

Medicine Residents 

Stasia Miaskiewicz, MD 

Ibrahim Ghobrial, MD 

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center at McKeesport 

105. Development of Novel Evaluation Tools to Assess the Systems- 

Based Practice Competency through Simulation 

Susan Thompson Hingle, MD 

Andrew J. Varney, MD 

Michael Clark 

Christine Todd, MD 

Southern Illinois University School of Medicine 

106. E-Learning Task Force Consumer Report Tier II: Best Openly 

Available E-Learning Websites for Self-Teaching 

Paul B. Aronowitz, MD 

California Pacific Medical Center 

Laura M. Whitman, MD 

Yale University School of Medicine 

Robert C. Reilly, MD 

State University of New York 

at Stony Brook Health Sciences Center 

John D. Myers, MD 

Texas A&M University College of Medicine 

Kenneth P. Steinberg, MD 



107. Hospitalist Medicine: Growth, Retention, and Transition to an 

Academic Program 

Tammy Lederer 

Sajeev Handa, MD 

Peter Ceriani 

Bethany Gentilesco, MD 






108. Improving Professionalism by Assessing Clinical-Ethical 

Ability among Residents with Observed Structured Clinical Exercises 

(OSCEs) 

Vijay Rajput, MD 

Emily Hartsough 

Elizabeth Cerceo, MD 

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 

Robert Wood Johnson Medical School 

109. Mental Health Challenges in Learners: Identification and 

Remediation 

Melissa A. McNeil, MD 

Raquel Buranosky, MD 

Janine M. Frank, MD 

Frank J. Kroboth, MD 

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine 

110. Qualitative Analysis for Medical Educators 

Katherine Chretien, MD 

Washington DC VA Medical Center 

Shiphra Ginsburg, MD 

University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine 

Karen E. Hauer, MD 

University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine 



111. Revamping Journal Club with Blogs and Logs to Lift the Fog 

Scott Kaatz, DO 

Kimberly Baker-Genaw, MD 

William Morse 

Sean Drake, MD 

Henry Ford Hospital 

112. Teaching and Evaluating Hand-Offs: A Competency-Based 

Approach 

Vineet M. Arora, MD 


Jennifer S. Myers, MD 

Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania 

Jennifer R. Kogan, MD 

Subha L. Airan-Javia, MD 

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine 


113. Where’s the Waste? Operations Improvement at the University 

of Michigan 

Lindsay J. Graham 




114. Writing a Recommendation Letter…Is There a Recommended 

Way? 

Rachel Bonnema, MD 

University of Nebraska Medical Center 

Abby Lyn Spencer, MD 

James J. Reilly, MD 

Allegheny General Hospital 

12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Lunch and AIM Distinguished Lecture 

Salons CD, Level Five 

Catherine G. Wood, Moderator 

AIM President 

1:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourns 

Dale W. Davenport 

Creighton University School of Medicine 



CDIM Council AIM Precourse AIM EC 

6:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. 

7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Breakfast Registration 

7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. x Breakfast 

8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Meeting Welcome 

8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. x Intro to AIM/AAIM 

9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. x Understanding Educ 

9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. x Mission 

10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. x Break 

10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. x Understanding 

11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. x Clinical Mission 

11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. x x 

12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Lunch Networking Lunch 

12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. x x 

1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. x Understanding 

1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. x Research Mission 

2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Meeting Break 

2:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. x Experienced Admins 

3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. x Panel 

3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. x Wrap Up 

4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. x 

4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. x 

5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 

6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Dinner 

7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. x 

8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. x 

8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. x 

9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Networking 

9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Suite 

10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. x 

10:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. x

Thursday, October 22, 2009 

AAIM Board APDIM PC CDIM PC for 

MSEs 

CDIM PC for 

NCDs 

CDIM PC for 

CAs 

CDIM NM 

AIM EC 

6:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. 

7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Breakfast PC Bkfst Breakfast 

AIM Bkfst 

7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. x x x 

x 

8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Meeting Welcome Welcome Why a CD? Welcome Welcome 

8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. x Yearly Cycle Framing Curriculum New Admins Plenary 

9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. x x Research Development Welcome Session I 

9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. x RRC-IM Question Teaching x x 

10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. x x Med Ed Strategies Student Break 

10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. x Workshop Research x Advocacy Workshop 

11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. x Session I Study Evaluation x Session I 

11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. x x x and Grading x x 

12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Lunch Lunch & Networking Networking Networking Networking 

12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. x Session Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch 

1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Meeting x IRB and Students Experienced x 

1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. x x Collaboration with Problems Admins SIGs 

2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. x Workshop x x Roundtable x 

2:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. x Session II x CD Career Discussions x 

3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. x x Refining Development Task Force x 

3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. x Break Project x Reports 

4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. x Small Groups Committee 

4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. x x Meetings 

5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. x 

5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. x 

6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 

6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Dinner 

7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. x 

8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. x 

AAIM Welcome Reception 

x


APM Board CDIM NM AIM EC APDIM FM 

6:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. 

7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. 

7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 

8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. 

Breakfast and Exhibits 

x 

Pres Address 

8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Plenary Workshop 

9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Session I Session II Committee 

9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. x x Meetings 

10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Break and Exhibits 

x 

10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Workshop Plenary x 

11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Session I Session II x 

11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. x x x 

12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Lunch 

Joint Lunch 

12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. x 

x 

1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Meeting 

x 

1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. x 

x 

2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. x Workshop Workshop Plenary 

2:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. x Session II Session III Session I 

3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. x x x x 

3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. x 


4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. x Plenary Committee Workshop 

4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. x Session II Meetings Session I 

5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. x x 

5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 

6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 

AAIM Poster Reception 

x 

x 

7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 

8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Saturday, October 24, 2009 

6:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. 

7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. 

7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 

8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. 

8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 

9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 

9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 

10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 

10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 

11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. 

11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

AIM Board CDIM NM AIM EC APDIM FM 

Breakfast and Exhibits 

x 

Joint Plenary Session 

x 

x 

x 


Joint Workshop Session 

x 

x 

12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Awards Lunch Lunch and Lec Awards Lunch 

12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. x x x 

1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. x x x 

1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Meeting Plenary Workshop 

2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. x Session III Session II 

2:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. x x x 

3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. x Assembly 

3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. x Mtgs 

4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. x x 

4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. x SIG 

5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. x Mtgs 

5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. x 

6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 

6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 

7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 

8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Sunday, October 25, 2009 

APDIM FM EIP 

6:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. 

7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Forums by 

7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Application 

8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Plenary 

8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Session II 

9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. x 

9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Break 

10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. How Do They 

10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Do That? 

11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. x 

11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. x 

12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Lunch 

12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. x 

1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Meeting 

1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. x 

2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. x 

2:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. x 

3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. x 

3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. x 

4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. x 

4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. x 

5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. x 

5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. x 

6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 

6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

AIM Precourse for New Administrators, “Managing the Tripartite Mission” 




Evaluation Summary 

I. Overall 

Meeting content and presentation on a scale of one to seven (one being low and seven being high): 

A. Overall opinion of precourse content 6.23 from 22 responses 

B. Overall impression of the quality of speakers 6.18 from 22 responses 

C. Overall impression of the precourse material 6.00 from 22 responses 

D. Overall impression of the facilities at the 5.86 from 22 responses 


E. Overall, this program was free of bias 6.45 from 22 responses 

II. Session and Speaker Evaluation 

Precourse sessions on a scale of one to seven (one being low and seven being high): 

Welcome and Overview 

Lisa Runco 

Steven Vinciguerra 

Presentation 

Content 

6.00 from 16 responses 


Introduction to AIM and AAIM 

Steven M. Humphrey 

Presentation 

Content 



Understanding the Education Mission 

E. Benjamin Clyburn, MD 

Presentation 

Content 



Understanding the Clinical Mission/A Billing Primer 

Nancy M. Rhodes 

Presentation 

Content 


6.15 from 13 responses

Understanding the Research Mission 

Suzanne C. Sutton 

Presentation 

Content 



Session and Individual Speaker Comments: 

VERY strong. 

Experienced Administrators’ Advice for New AIM Members Panel Discussion 

Brandy L. Carlile 


Jonathan D. Meyer 

Kathleen A. Kostic 

Presentation 

Content 



Wrap Up 

Lisa Runco 


Presentation 

Content 




I would have liked more time for 1:1 discussions or break outs or “how would you handle ___” as 

a team table discussion. This would be an opportunity to share perspectives with peers at other 

academic centers. I really enjoyed the lunch portion with representatives from AIM. Our table sat 

with Kevin from UCSF who brought his insights from IT for a good back and forth at the table 

and we got to know the differences and similarities through casual discussion. 

Topics to address at future AIM precourses: 

How to retrieve evaluations in a timely manner. 

Faculty recruitment and compensation. 

Topicts on Citizenship/VISA;H1 &J1 

All topics were exactly what I had question in 

The role of admin in medical staff appointments 

Other comments about the AIM Precourse for New Administrators: 

Nancy and Susan were the strongest presenters and had valuable insights and information to share. 

Thank you for putting the program together. 

The Guide is very helpful. 

It was very infomative and assisted in understanding the role much better of the administrator. 

Presentations were a bit long. It would be great to incorporate case presentations or role play to 

engage the audience. 

2009 AIM Precourse for New Administrators Evaluation Summary Page 2

Academic Internal Medicine Week 2009 

October 22-25, 2009 



Evaluation Summary 

I. Overall 

Primary Meeting: 


169 responses 

2009 CDIM National Meeting 68 responses 

2009 APDIM Fall Meeting 269 responses 

Meeting content and presentation on a scale of one to seven (one being low and seven being high): 

A. Overall opinion of meeting content 5.77 from 501 responses 

B. Overall impression of the quality of speakers 5.87 from 500 responses 

C. Overall impression of the meeting material 5.67 from 495 responses 

D. Overall impression of the facilities at the 5.66 from 499 responses 


E. Overall, this program was free of bias 6.51 from 494 responses 

II. Meeting plenary and workshop sessions on a scale of one to seven (one being low and seven being high): 

Academic Internal Medicine Week 2009 Joint Sessions 

AAIM Lunch and Joint Plenary Session, “AAIM and the Future of Academic Internal Medicine” 

D. Craig Brater, MD, Moderator 

David B. Nash, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




Excellent talk/speaker. 

Superb presentation by Dr. Nash. Hope the summary is included in the handouts after the meeting. Also, 

enjoyed Dr. Brater’s presentation. I think his perspective is valid and I appreciate his sharing it. 

AV support was poor at the beginning 

GREAT speaker 

The presentation was showy but failed to engage; the content was all material I’ve heard over and over 

again. 

Seemed a bit condescending at times. 

Well done talk 

Boring and not relevant 

The President of AAIM was boring and the content he presented had little relevance to us. The audio 

equipment was poor. The second speaker was much better.

I honestly can’ t remeber much from this except that it was intersting to see how staff resources are divided 

in the organization. 

The guest speaker didn’t quite understand his audience and appeared to be giving mostly a canned talk. 

While I appreaciate being stimulated to think, I think he went over the line a tiny bit too much. On the 

other hand, he clearly has a superior public speaking ability. 

Expected it to be more controversial. 

David Nash was a difficult speaker who seemed to be somewhat condescending to the audience. he also did 

not address the other members of the audience who are not program directors 

Keynote speaker was great! 

Great speaker, compelling, eloquent 

This speaker was great, very dynamic and was good to hear about his thoughts on healthcare reform. 

Entertaining, good lunch topic 

Very dynamic speaker 

Sound system was not very good 

LOVED Dave Nash, love speakers who take a chance and really go out on a limb and speak their mind, 

reminded me of hearing Larry Smith at APDIM couple years back 

Very enthusiastic and thought provoking but I’m not sure what I was meant to walk away with. 

I appreciate a challenge and the speaker challenged us all. One question/concern...why mention Lilly 

pharmaceutical? was there a conflict of interest not disclosed? 

A bit on the dry side. 

Thought it could have provided more insight 

Ratings are for Dr. Nash’s presentation - appropriate, succinct 

Good speaker; ?reference to Lilly 

Speaker was experienced and smooth; content was nothing new. 

Not very high yield. Too focused on residents and not on students. 

The presenter had many firm opinions but offered few concrete ideas as to how to accomplish these goals. 

Great speaker. Great topic. 

Energetic speaker, clear message, motivational. It did not provide solutions, but the call to action was worth 

it. 

Very agenda driven session with little to no interest to me 

Difficulty hearing first speaker and felt second speaker was clearly biased on his opinions. 

OK. The reference and advertisement for Eli Lilly was jarring. 

Excellent to hear the views of the various chairs and a very relevent topic. 

Dynamic speaker, though lost some credibility when acknowledging the “guest” from Eli Lily at the end of 

his presentation 

The speaker was dynamic and boiled everything down to a few key points. 

Dr nash was a very good speaker. aaim info not very intersting 

Would consider Nash as a future keynote speaker, or the closing speaker -- great for creating energy in the 

group. 

This was DYNAMIC and Dr. Nash was the perfect speaker for this topic. His talk should have opened the 

week’s conference. 

Speaker wasn’t afraid of controversy was he? Thought provoking. Speaker was succinct & to the point. 

David Nash was the best part of the entire program!!! 

Excellent speaker. In the future however, please inform the speakers that the group they are addressing is 

not only physicians, but also administrators/coordinators. I like jokes about internists just as much as the 

next guy, but it’s a little hurtful to be ignored completely by someone’s general remarks. It seems the 

choice of joint plenary speakers always caters to the fact that physicians don’t care to listen to nonphysicians. 

Could we switch it up next time? 

Outstanding speaker from Thomas Jefferson. Very interesting and entertaining! 

Dr. Nash was a dynamic, engaging speaker with interesting viewpoints 

Luncheon plenaries are always so dry. 

Nash was provocative.... 

Academic Internal Medicine Week 2009 Evaluation Summary Page 2

Speaker from Penn was a little inflammatory 

Could not hear Dr. Brater speak 

It was great to hear and see Dr. Brader speak. I found David Nash pompous and condescending. 

Boring. You don’t need to tell this group that patient safety is paramount and that humans make errors. We 

are front line on the floors supervising trainees. Also couldn’t hear Dr. Brater well at all--microphone 

issue? 

The keynote discussion if industry sponsorship disgusted me. POOR CHOICE!!!! 

David Nash - provocative, very clearly stated goals and easy to understand. Practical solutions were stated 

clearly and I agree with the emphasis on improving safety. 

Good overview on quality and compliance 

First speaker was monotnous and hard to hear. Second speaker was great. It would be nice to have their 

names and topics listed for accuracy 

Initial part of the talk was very long. 

David Nash gave an excellent talk 

Was apleasure to hear Dr Nash. 

David Nash gave an inspiring speech 

Really enjoyed hearing from David Nash. 

Overall good, but I was a bit shocked by the speakers unabashed PLUG for the ELI LILLY 

CORPORATION, which seemed inappropriate. A bit more flash than substance, than I would have liked 

re: policy implications. 

Nash was outstanding, the other speaker was not. 

Had a bit of a hard time hearing Dr. Brater. the speaker from Jeff was excellent 

Dr. Nash is an outstanding speaker. He is dynamic, articulate, and presents thoughtful ideas. I was 

bothered by his advertisement for Lilly at the end of the presentation. I found that disturbing and in 

addition he did not list Lilly on his disclosure form. Otherwise, great talk. 

Main speaker was great. We came away very enthusiastic and invigorated 

Health Reform, What Do Learners Need to KNow? by Dr. David Asch. Dr. Asche was an outstanding 

motivational speaker. I took notes and will be using his points to inform a Health Policy Interest Group. 

Wonderful to attend an engaging plenary session without powerpoint slides. very clear, precise. 

unfortunate phrasing and choice of words at the end, implying that increased #’s of women in medicine, 

along with things like duty hours and other new “lifestyle” adjustments, are something that we’ll have to 

endure as a profession, as if it’s a burden. Shame on you Dr. Nash, you know better! 

I thought that the controversy presented about quality and the organization’s goals was interesting and 

pertinent to the organization. the issue about whether we should attempt a national influence at the expense 

of a quality or member needs agenda is a difficult leadership question. 

Stump speech that was rewarmed for this lunch. Glib and pithy. Good framework, but lacks street 

credibility, to my view. Nash summarily discounted Jefferson’s ability to mimic Geisinger. This bias 

obviated any message he would have otherwise conveyed 

Great speaker 

Dr. Brater’s content was good, but he should work on delivery. For example, increased awareness of 

cadence and tone would improve audience attention span. Dr. Nash is a very dynamic speaker, and he 

brought up good points, but his approach was controversial, with less regard to eliminating bias from his 

message. 

Although I agree with 99% of what Dr. Nash had to say, I felt like rather than starting a great debate as 

many of his comments could have, we instead heard the very insightful comments of a very smart 

antagonist individual; I’m sorry he feels so all alone in the pursuit of excellence 

Plenary sessions, in general, are neither rich nor transformative. This one proved to be no exception. 

Acoustics and visuals need improvement. couldn’t hear from everywhere and couldn’t see from 

everywhere 

The keynote discussion if industry sponsorship disgusted me. POOR CHOICE!!!! 


AAIM Joint Plenary Session, “Electronic Health Records in Education: State of the Art and Future 

Directions” 

Joe Doty, Moderator 

Gary S. Ferenchick, MD 

David R. Donnersberger, Jr., MD, JD 

Michael H. Zaroukian, MD, PhD 

Presentation 

Content 




All presentations superb. Dr. Zaroukian’s prediction pf “digital rivers of patient health information” was 

colorful and I suspect unfortunately all too accurate. One point not clearly addressed (unless I missed it) 

was the fact that the EMR turns many physicians into data entry technicians, a job that not all are 

comfortable with nor particulary adept at. 

Dr. Donnersberger gave a nice presentation and brought up pertinent legal insights into this issue. Should 

definitely invite him back. 

I wanted to hear more practical advice about how to get students access to the records. To say that we need 

to be advocating for the students is preaching to the choir. The problem is that WE don’t control access, IT 

does and they seem to have little incentive to give students access. We are creating a generation of medical 

students who won’t know how to write when they get to residency (and we’re already seeing it in awful 

notes written in OSCEs, during clerkships, etc) 

Interestingly enough, there was no one from a VA involved in the presentation, undervaluing the oldest 

EHR system. The legal implications were something that should have been stressed more and made more 

clear. 

Power point slides were too busy 

Really didn’t learn anything new 

I think it was fine but not all places have fancy EMR systems that allow for a “playground” in which 

students can practice. That would be nice, but what do we do when we can’t have them practice? 

Great perspectives 

Excellent discussion 

I was a little disappointed that there wasn’t more discussion about the controversies, particularly legal ones 

that are becoming a barrier in med ed. The Q&A was more helpful than the formal presentations that were 

a bit too long and the first two a bit redundant. I respected all the speakers and wish the opening remarks 

were shorter with more time for audience participation 

Hard to translate to my own practice. 

Would like to see more in future meetings including practical workshops. 

Another fun debate that challenged my own opinions and beliefs. Well done. Wish I knew what to do 

afterwards, but no conclusions drawn. 

Repetitive between speakers and a little dull 

Unsure clinical impact 

Not very helpful. 

First two speakers went on too long telling us things we already knew. Third speaker was a bit better. 

Around me most people were reading newspaper or on Blackberry’s. 

Seemed like rahrah for EMR without discussing the negatives. 

Very interesting topics. Speakers were good. Legal aspects of students and EMR was particularly 

interesting, although other speakers did a great job of educating me on the potential for EMR in education 

and the challenges (which I had never thought about before) of using it for the modern generation. 

Great topic though did not get to the heart of the matter which is how to incorporate the EHR with medical 

education and the reality that medical students do not all get full access to EHRs at facilities. 

Really excellent discussion of a timely topic - especially appreciated donnersberger 

There were too many people in this session. It was hard to hear and see. 


Speakers were good but it was a draining topic....in large groups like that it is helpful to have some more 

interaction. 

Speakers were well versed & had indepth knowledge. Liked the JD aspect too. 

Another joint plenary that has little interest for the administrator/coordinator. The speakers were interesting 

and engaging, but the topic had no application for me. 

I wish that all presentations during this segment were downloadable due to the high quantity of thoughtful 

analysis 

Legal guy wasn’t that great need more discussion about impact of using mineable data 

The speakers didn’t need to explain to this group that electronic records are important. I didn’t get much 

out of this session. I would like to have heard about state-of-the-art functionality. 

Zaroukian was great. 

Excellent, knowledgable speakers. 

Updated the new trends in emr 

Very informative and thought provoking 

Needed more specific info on EMR...it was more of an overview...We know why we need it. We needed to 

hear what is the best way to implement and how to get past obstacles. 

Lots of theory, no data. The legal/Recovery Act portion was too long--could have been handled in 1-2 

slides. Meaningful use concept helpful. 

Important but hard to be inspiring with this 

There seemed to be some duplication among the speakers- and alot of the material was not educationally 

related- still did value the session overal 

Mike Zarookian was terrific 

This was not terribly helpful. 

Content was interesting but presentation lacked pizzazz and attention. 

Dr. Zaroukian obviously is very knowledgeable but is speech was all lists without fleshing out the issuesvery 

unhelpful and not up to this meetings usual quality. Ferencheck was much more interesting and 

useful. Donnersberger covered a lot of ground, but much not applicable to me. 

This wasnt as useful for me since we have an emr that provides alot of decision support 

CDIM speaker was insightful, good to have him speak at APDIM 

Too student oriented. Ignores those of us only part way to EMRs 

Very boring, the topic was not that interesting and stimulating 

This session sometimes stated the obvious, but the general discussion was good and emphasized the wish 

that EHRs would transform bedside medicine--and they do not. 

While this is definitely an area of importance, it is a difficult subject to effectively deliver. The speakers 

were not particularly dynamic, increasing the difficulty for audience members to maintain prolonged 

attention to the subject. In addition, I believe more attention should be given to the reasons for resistance to 

change. I believe many audience members were concerned about the format of EMR used--i.e., whether 

check-box template formats of data entry will reliably produce internists who can formulate assessments in 

cogent fashion. 

Could not read the slides 

Plenary sessions, in general, are neither rich nor transformative. This one proved to be no exception. A 

great many attendees left throughout the presentation because the plenary did not speak to them 

Some of the slides were unreadable from the back of the room. 

Same comment re room acoustics and visuals 

Overall, helpful, but at a very high level without addressing the more concrete implementation issues of an 

EHR in our clinical setting. 2nd and 3rd speakers were strongest. 


AAIM Joint Workshop Session 

Average Presentation= 6.18 

Average Content = 6.27 

101. A Brave New World: Professionalism and the Digital Age 

Darilyn V. Moyer, MD 

Susan Gersh, MD 

Jeanne M. Farnan, MD 

Shalini T. Reddy. MD 

Presentation 

Content 



Workshop Session and Individual Speaker Comments: 

Stimulating and interactive - I’m sharing what I learned with my dept and faculty! 

would use this as a point counter point for next year’s meeting, i.e. should your “friend” your students or 

patients? 

Well done workshop. Interesting, current. 

Phenominal workshop. The structure was great - short didactics by changing speakers, memorable 

examples and videos, and great small group and audience participation. The topic is inherently interesting, 

but these faculty did an exceptional job with it. Really raised my awareness. 

Very informative 

Very interesting and engaging. 

Great examples, great format, dynamic speakers 

An awesome, thought provoking workshop. 

102. Coordinartor Consolidation: Achieving Collegial Compliance 

Diane W. Farineau 

Sally T. Miller 


Presentation 

Content 

6.67 from six responses 



Extremely useful info and well-planned by speakers. Slides were self-explanatory, too - a plus for making 

good use of them when getting back to work. 

103. Creating a Curriculim Road Map 21st Century Style 

Leigh Burgess 

Diana B. McNeill, MD 

Murat Arcasoy, MD 

Aimee Zaas, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




The presenters were enthusiastic, but the website that they put together requires a lot of helping hands and 

administrative time. I was in awe of how much work went into their system, but it did not help me as I 

have been asked to build a curriculum from the ground up. 


An interesting discussion. Wish that they would have given us access to their website, not so we could 

steal their information, but because it would be useful to see the full scope of what they had done in a more 

relaxed format and at a speed where it was easier to assimilate. 

good topic, helpful, organized 

Outstanding!!! 

104. Development of a Procedure Skills Rotation for Internal Medicine Residents 

Stasia Miaskiewcz, MD 

Ibrahim Ghobrial, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




Well organized. a lot of participation was encouraged. 

Sasha was great. Wonderful ideas. I am going to try and integrate these ideas into my program. 

Overall, a well laid-out topic. However, I was a little disappointed that the presenters were from a smaller 

program, as the issues raised were not applicable to my large, urban, University system. The presenters 

were billed as “University of Pittsburgh” whereas in fact they were a Pittsburgh affiliated community 

hospital. 

Nicely done. The presenters were well-prepared and shared great information. They also shared their 

expertise in Audience Response softweare before the workshop began. 

105. Development of Novel Education Tools to Assess the Systems-Based Proactice Competency through 

Simulation 

Susan Thompson Hingle, MD 

Andrew J. Varney, MD 

Michael Clark 

Christine Todd, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




I originally thought it would be Sim Man rather than standardized patients, but it was good. Would love to 

see Sim Man applications in future meetings. 

Nice job. Thoughtful presentation; presenters were gracious about sharing their work, which all 

appreciated. 

Useful perspective and approach. Perhaps not easily transferrable, however. 

106. E-Learning Task Force Consumer Report Tier II: Best Openly Available E-Learning Websites for Self- 

Teaching 

Paul B. Aronowitz, MD 

Laura M. Whitman, MD 

Robert C. Reilly, MD 

John D. Myers, MD 

Kenneth P. Steinberg, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




Not what I expected, wanted more of how to incorporate into teaching 


Very practical and I didn’t mind at all that you did try to make it a “workshop”. I thought the comparison 

table the last (?) speaker made was very helpful. The first speaker didn’t need ot go into quite so much 

detail as the 3 sites seemed pretty similar. In general you coul dhave moved through the sites a bit faster. 

There was too much droning on about the individual sites, the resource is phenomenal but not how it was 

presented 

Thank you for your task force that has helped provide great resources and scored them with criteria to help 

those of us that don’t have time to look for find all the sites. 

I don’t think this session needed 90 minutes 

Fantastic high yield workshop 

Speakers needed mikes--it was so hard to hear from the back with computers clicking and texting phones 

around me. Next time show the web site in large print on the top of the slide to read from the back of the 

room so I can linkt he notes I took with the correct site. I am so interested in what the reviewers think of the 

sites and want to digest them all. 

Most useful resource gained from the meeting 

Very useful exposure to the sites would like to see this expanded to more subjects great job taking on the 

searches 

Session leaders did an amazing amount of good work to assess these site. job well done! 

Fun hearing from 5 different speakers. Very relevant to what we all do. 

Really appreciate all the work of this task force! 

There is no need to review each individual site - can quickly read a summary and check out the site 

ourselves. The process is more helpful to discuss as well as some potential uses for the future 

Great resources. Nicely vetted. 

Nice session overall. Appreciate the hard work done by the task force 

Would be nice to have a one-page Consumer Reports type of summary of the sites. 

107. Hospitalist Medicine: Growth, Retention, and Transistion to an Academic Program 

Tammy Lederer 

Sajeev Handa, MD 

Peter J. Ceriani 

Bethany Gentilesco, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




This was possibly a helpful session, but not for me, i left early. i thought it would be more of how to make 

a hospitalist program more academic, but felt it was more number/salary based and meant for 

administrators. would make that more clear on the description of the course. 

The topic was very interesting, and the speakers made some excellent points. It would have benefited from 

the perspective of an additional, more mature academic program. 

Terrific and varied presentation showing the teaching and non teaching models at a single Dept of 

Medicine 

I thought the presentation of non teaching coupled with a teaching program was very worthwhile. 

Didn’t think there was anything very novel here. This was a lecture and there was not workshop activity. 

This was more appropriate for a SHM audience rather than educators. Unfortunately, one of the speakers 

seemed to have been taken so advantage of by her hospital employer that the session disintegrated into 

disbelief on the part of the attendees. This really distracted the audience and took away from the 

educational value of the session. 

Very good session with excellent ideas/suggestions but got too bogged down in specific detail at the end. 

One institution’s experience still untested. Not yet ready for prime time. 

This workshop was highly variable. The presentations from the hospitalist and financial officer were very 

good. The presentation from the human resources person was not necessary. The presentation by the 

hospitalist from the Mariam Hospital was the worst I have ever heard at a APDIM meeting. She was a vey 


poor speaker, presented a structure where she was running two inpatient services and was the attending on 

40 patients at the same time. Members of the audience kept questioning her since it didn’t seem 

conceivable that this was what was going on but she confirmed the figures. She also had no idea on the 

finances or source of funding for the program. What she presented raises serious patient safety and 

educational issues. Don’t let her speak at APDIM again! 

108. Improving Professionalism by Assessing Clinical-Ethical Ability among Residents with Observed 

Structural Clinical Excercises (OSCEs) 

Vijay Rajput, MD 

Emily Hartsough 

Elizabeth Cerceo, MD 

Presentation 

Content 

6.71 from seven responses 

6.88 from eight responses 

109. Mental Health Challenges in Learners: Identification and Remediation 

Melissa A. McNeil, MD 

Raquel Buranosky, MD 

Janine M. Frank, MD 

Frank J. Kroboth, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




Excellent workshop 

Great speakers and extremely useful information - very well done!! 

Excellent, would love more written info and/or references 

110. Qualitative Analysis for Medical Educators 

Katherine Chretien, MD 

Shirphra Ginsburg, MD 

Karen E. Hauer, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




Nice job explaining basics of a difficult research area 

Very enthusiastic presenters, i was impressed with how much work this is. Seems like one needs funds for 

interviewers and transcribers, before one even gets started. 

Overall good, but 90 minutes was clearly not enough time to get familiar with the material. 

Good breakout sessions. I would have appreciated a user’s guide rather than an investigator’s introduction, 

which this seemed to be. 

Excellent presentation. wish there was more time. Would suggest presenters consider doing an even more 

basic session- including defining some of the terms used. Would like more time to practice coding. 


111. Revamping Journal Club with Blogs and Logs to Lift the Fog 

Scott Kaatz, DO 

Kimberly Baker-Genaw, MD 

William Morse 

Sean Drake, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




This was farily good. Drawback was that the blog portion wasn’t practical for me to implement at my 

small community program. Would need a lot more IT support and a critical mass of residents to make it 

work. Great ideas for journal club, though. 

Excellent ideas. Great overview of helpful tools. No pie in the sky, all could be applied to some degree. 

Well done. 

This was an interesting session, with several ideas discussed. The final presenter (the “tech guy”) was not 

very effective. 

112. Teaching and Evaluating Hand-Offs: A Competency-Based Approach 

Vineet M. Arora, MD 

Jennifer S. Myers, MD 

Jennifer R. Kogan, MD 

Subha Airan-Javia, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




Session packed with useful information, involved participants in discussion. Room set-up not the best for a 

workshop--very crowded, no way to move into smaller groups. 

Helpful session, presented effectively. 

Interesting and impt topic. we need to be talking with students about this from day 1 

Very well done. Great educators. They knew both their material and their audience. 

Appreciate the speakers willingness to share their toolbox with the participants. 

Absolutely terrific session! 

Excellent 

Very good workshop! 

Extremely timely and helpful - especially appreciate their willingness to share their toolkit. 

Assumed we all had emrs 

Excellent presentation. Best workshop I’ve been to yet. 

Outstanding - used several different methods of presenting material. 

113. Where’s the Waste? Operations Improvement at the University of Michigan 

Lindsay J. Graham 

Presentation 

Content 




Excellent and useful information. I have already used the research benchmarks per grants to evaluate my 

research staffing. 

I thought Lindsay did a much better job at this session. 

My only issue with the session was that the room was ridiculously cold. 


Lot of material covered. I thought I may have gotten more from the last part of the presentation. Lindsay 

did a great job covering it all by himself. 

Thank you to Mr. Graham for sharing the level of detail that he did regarding specific projects and the 

administrative benchmarking process. This kind of tools/methods sharing is the richest gain from meeting 

with others from different institutions -- the nitty gritty detail and tools to take home. 

Speaker read from the slides - very disappointing. No matter how good a topic may be, if your delivery is 

poor, audience will be bored. I left early because the presentation of the material was too poor. 

First half of talk more helpful than last half. 

Great stuff, but tried to cover too much. Also, the slides were very difficult to read from the back of the 

room... way too many lines per slide. Rather than just talk about Univ. of Michigan’s experience, I would 

have liked to hear what their lessons learned were and how we can take this information back to our home 

institution to use. 

114. Writing a Recommendation Letter…Is There a Recommended Way? 

Rachel Bonnema, MD 

Abby Lyn Spencer, MD 

James J. Reilly, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




Very helpful 

Great session--very helpful. It was also nice to have so many people with various levels of experience--it 

helped to bounce ideas off each other. 

The review of good and weak LOR was very helpful. The small group sessions was also helpful to see how 

others would approach issues. 

Very practical and enjoyable workshop 

Great session. Great content. Great discussion. Great examples. 

Good session. Should be repeated next year 

Excellent. WOuld have been even better if room wasn’t so small and so crowded. We didn’t all get copies 

of letters we were discussing. 

Very good. would only suggest that the speakers color-code the sample letters for ease of communication 

during the session - too many similar pieces of paper floating around 

Terrific session, very helpful. I thought back on it when writing all my fellowship letters! One suggestion 

would be to give everyone a copy of all the letters in the small groups so we could see what the content was 

when people were reporting back. 

The best workshop for me. Interesting, fun, great exchange, lots of laughs 

Excellent session the room was too small for the number of participants 

Smaller size groups would be helpful. 

Superb session--Abby did a terrific job, well versed in the issues and details. we’ll need more sessions on 

this topic, the room was crammed. 

Great session, interactive, great letters to review, good for all of us to come together to find some common 

ground 

Outstanding workshop. i do wish that the slides were provided ahead of time, now, 2 days after the 

workshop is over, the slides are still not available. 

Excellent, very helpful 



Welcome and Introductions 

Catherine G. Wood 

Presentation 

Content 




Short and to the point was appreciated 

Good but this session should really start at 9am. What AIM forgets is that you do have alot of people from 

the west coast coming in who are trying to deal with a 3 hour time difference. Starting the sessions at 8am 

is just too early. 

Precise to the key points 

Plenary Session I, “Organization of Departments of Internal Medicine: Centers, Institutes, and 

Multidisciplinary Frameworks” 

Lindsay J. Graham, Moderator 


William B. Applegate, MD 

Max Wicha, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




Should have allowed more time for questions! 

It was very helpful to hear the perspectives from each of the three parties (Dean, DOM Chair, Ca Ctr Dir.) 

Thanks for bringing them together for this. 

This was one my least favorite session. I think the panel was made up of good people but there was not 

enough Q&A and interaction with the audience. I did not like the format. It felt like we were being talked 

at for two hours and after a while you lost interest in the conversation. 

I’m involved in helping getting a center started, and after the presentation, I learned I wasn’t! I am now 

involted in getting a program started. It saved me a lot of effort. Klotman was particularly helpful. 

I would of recommended that this not be the start off session it was good but it was a hard topic to jump off 

with. Lindsay talked too long and didn’t leave enough time for speakers. More time for questions and 

answers. 

Good material, good information, just no time for questions. went too long. 

Found this topic very interesting and relevant 

Too long, application to administrators unclear. 

It was important information and the format (Q&A to panel instead of slides) was refreshing and 

interesting. The time management was really poor, however, and there was not enough time for questions 

from the floor, which would have made the presentation more interesting. 

This was excellent, it was good to hear the spectrum 

More formal info would have been better. 

Good breakdown of complicated information. Each speaker was very knowledgeable. 

It’s interesting to hear from chairs, when so much of what we do administering is trying to interpret what 

chairs’ and other high ranking faculty’s goals are. The speakers were knowledgeable, engaging and I 

appreciate how they were able to connect their topics to the administrators’ concerns, i.e. where do we 

appoint faculty, etc. 

Wish there would have been more time for questions. probably not a good session to start with, not very 

dynamic or energetic topic to kick off the meeting. 


Speakers really knew their topics - especially Chair at Mt Sinai and was very engaging. Have him come 

again next year 

The panel was extremely knowledgeable and I appreciated the caliber of the representatives. 

Excellent course content 

AIM Workshop Session I 

Average Presentation=6.05 

Average Content=6.10 

101. Guideline Metrics for Determining Appropriate Administrative Staffing Levels (in Clinical, Research, and 

Educational Domains) 

Joseph Gough 


Luis Rivera 

Presentation 

Content 




Great session, suggest having a committee to expand this analysis. 

Good information which we all could use. 

Topic was relevant and intersting. would be better if had more comparison institutions and some standard 

staffing comparison 

Excellent presentation by all members of the panel. 

Very good material, lots of interest in this topic. I liked having two different schools represented. 

Look forward to more information as it becomes available. Hopefully a survey will be developed. 

By far the best presentation of the conference. An hour and a half was not sufficient for the content. I 

think they each could have done a presentation in the allotted time (1.5 hrs each) to allow more time for 

Q&A and to dig a little deeper. SO MUCH content and meat for the time allowed. 

102. Empowering Data to Tell a Story—Two Approaches to Business Intelligence Tools and Dashboards 


Michael A. Zang 


Presentation 

Content 




Two very different approaches and both very helpful. 

Two very different presentations probably would of not combined them. 

The session started a bit early and was overflowing - thus, a bit distracting. Overall, I enjoyed the 

presentation from Bess. 

Wildman was EXCELLENT. 

The U of V content and speakers was interesting and informative. The content from UPitt was less 

interesting and took up too much time during the session. 

Great session. information was timely & intuitive to needs. Both presentations were well organized & kept 

interest of all in the room. 

I appreciated Ms. Ealy’s clear and careful explanation of the UPMC dashboard. It was useful to see what is 

of importance to other institutions, and understand how the choose to monitor and represent those measures 

of interest. Less useful was hearing UVA’s tale of trials and tribulations launching their data mining 

system. Yes, I could relate their concerns to ones at our university, and was impressed by their efforts, 


committment, and very entertained by their talk, but there were no tools I could take home and use. Ms. 

Wildman was very engaging. 

I enjoyed the U Va. presentation as well during this time slot; wish a copy of that presentation could be 

downloaded as well. 

1st speaker did not know material well and was at a very summary level. She was bombarded with 

questions based on that and couldn’t answer - not well prepared on how the data was formulated. 2nd 

speaker understood well and the handouts were helpful. 

Pittsburgh lady was good Bess Wildman was also full of content 

103. Preparing for the RRC-IM Site Visit 

Roya Ismail-Beigi 

Craig D. Nielsen, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




Would have been perfect if a rep from ACGME was also speaker, but was very useful and to the point 

104. Taking Over the Hospital: Hospitalists in the Academic Institution 

Holly A. Hammond 

Nathan J. O’Dorisio, MD 

Presentation 

Content 




Benchmarking data was helpful 

Thought this session was very useful. A lot of valuable information was shared regarding their program. 

Got limited use out of this presentation; could have been because our program is well advanced; this 

session was not my first choice (but first choice was full and this was the next best thing) 

AIM Networking Lunch 

Presentation 

Content 




Noise and seating made it hard to interact with everyone at the table. 

That was great. I loved the table markings so you knew where to sit and forced you to meet others in your 

area 

I thought this was a great idea. It was nice to interact with people in the group prior to the next session. 

Could have been organized better. 

Great idea....I liked adding time to mix and mingle 

Very good, I enjoyed meeting new people. 

Lunch was very enjoyab;e 

90 min. may be too long for unstructured time. 

This was an excellent way to connect with new members and members I had never met before. 

I liked the networking lunch session. Should continue this each year. It will build relationships within the 

organization. 

It was very loud in that room, as I think most of those cavernous ballrooms can get when everyone is 

talking. I didn’t meet anyone who was sitting more than two chairs from me, and others from my institution 

sat on either side of me, inhibiting the networking purpose. Perhaps a lunch is not the best way to facilitate 


networking. I could see how roundtable discussions around certain topics, rather than job type. Also, my 

role did not fit very neatly into any of the groups. 

A very good idea, but wish it would have been a bit more structured with a designated leader at each table 

with a list of questions for the group to take turns answering. I think the conversation defaulted a lot to 

basic getting-to-know-you conversation, which is also good. But might have been able to get even more 

out of it by sharing thoughts on specific topics or even just sharing challenges/successes, etc. 

I think the intent was good - put people in by group so that they can network, but one of my colleagues 

table had 7 people from the same school and no one spoke to her. Find a way to either do assigned seating 

or encourage people to sit with others not from their own school. Some icebreaker games would also help 

so people are forced to talk to each other.Also get board members out there and have them each sit on 

different tables. I was disappointed by their lack of involvement in trying to help facilitate the networking. 

There were alot of new faces at AIM this year and it helps when someone is more outgoing, like a board 

member should be, to engage in conversations and make new members more comfortable. That’s what will 

help draw in new members and help them stay on. 

Great new idea. Well executed. 

I enjoyed having the tables set up by role. It was a great way to network and have focused conversations. 

The featured speaker was very good but the introductory speaker was not (the President). The topic was 

about problems and not really specific about solutions. 

AIM Special Interest Group Meetings 

Chief Administrative Officers 

Brain L. David, Co-Moderator 

Patty McCarroll, Co-Moderator 

Presentation 

Content 




This is always helpful. 

The room was huge and the acoustics terrible. I couldn’t hear parts of it, depending on where the speaker 

was sitting. What was said was helpful, and I’m sorry I missed parts of it. 

These have historically been my favorite sessions. It was interesting there was a group of very jr 

administrators that dominated the discussions which was good for them to learn but it meant that I didn’t 

get as much out of it as I did in previous years. 

Although the dynamics (an extremely large circle) has inherent challenges (hearing others), overall, it 

allowed us to engage a bit more. 

These are always interesting. 

Not much content 

Did not get quite as much out of this as I have in the past. Wish we would have stuck to suggested topics a 

bit more, at least to start out. 

Great conversations on very relavent issues. Well run - topics that were general for all institutions (public 

and private) were discussed and those too focused were not lingered upon. 

Financial and Research Administrators 

Akankshi A. Arora, Co-Moderator 

Jennifer L. Dickey, Co-Moderator 

Presentation 

Content 

5.63 from eight responses 




Presenters for this session should come from academic setting of differing size and region. Too focused on 

West Coast issues. 

This was one of the best Financial/Res Admin SIGs I had attended in many years. We covered lots of 

topics and didn’t get stuck on a topic no one wanted to discuss. 

Covered a lot of material. The facilitators did a great job of staying on subject, keeping conversation 

flowing, relating topics to their work experience, & soliciting conversation from the audience. Also Aashi 

sent out an email prior to conference indicating & asking for input on topics to discuss. I think that got 

everyone thinking prior to the meeting. The facilitators did a great job. 

Not as organized as the others; somewhat random topics that did not probe deeply. 

Wish there was a sign in sheet to ask out more questions to this group especially since there were other 

types of adminstrators there like the divisional managers. 

The leaders of this session were great. They were not at all the problem. This meeting was far too skewed 

to the research side. I feel that these meetings could be separated to get more defined. There was also one 

girl from Mt. Sinai that DOMINATED the conversation, which made it hard for anyone to contribute 

thoughtfully. In the future, I would like to see more time for general discussion, rather than outlined 

topics. The presenters did a great job, though. 

Lots of good discussion - liked the one on overhead allotments 

Clinical Administrators 

Kevin McLaren, Co-Moderator 

Valeda B. Dixon, Co-Moderator 

Presentation 

Content 




I am the Chief Administrator officer but decided to engage with the clinical administrators to see what their 

burning issues are. I errored in this approach as most of the issues appeared to be “old news” to me. 

Useful, but some structured remarks rather than an entirely discussion-based approach resulted in more 

anecdotes than useful skills 

Division Administrators (Procedural Specialties) 

Jeffrey R. Holden, Co-Moderator 

Robert E. Young, Co-Moderator 

Presentation 

Content 

6.20 from five responses 

6.40 from five responses 


Too much time given lunch with similar topic. 

Division Administrators (Nonprocedural Specialties) 

Teresa C. Carrothers, Co-Moderator 

Jeff Kunz, Co-Moderator 

Presentation 

Content 




I just wanted to have a discussion not hear about the moderators institution 


AIM Workshop Session II 



201. It’s Gainsharing and Shortfall Agreements with Your Hospital: The Positives and the Pitfalls 

Lynell W. Klassen 

Lisa Runco 

Presentation 

Content 




Great presenters! Honest look at results and poor decisions. 

Some the spreadsheets were hard to read but real data was shared which was great. 

I thought the speakers were good and it is nice to hear what challenges others are facing. The Chair really 

captured the audience. 

Interesting story told, but not all that helpful. 

Excellent presentation. Engaging and informative 

What a great session! It was dynamic and kept the audience fully engaged. 

Klassen & Runco were entertaining, but might have bordered on unprofessional in some of their comments 

about their hospital. 

Another great session. I liked the chair speaking w/ his administrator. Cartoons in the presentation were 

great. Did a wonderful job w/ audience questions. Lisa Runco is a good speaker & able to interject 

administrative points that were of interest. 

Both Lyn and Lisa were excellent speakers who keep the participants involved. 

My favorite AIM session this year - I learned alot. Material was well presented and speakers were very in 

tune with the audience - asked and answered questions well. It was the 1st time I had been to a Univ of 

Nebraska presentation and hope to see more presentations from them in the future. 

202. More than Employee Relations: A Case Study on Creating a Strategic Partnership with Human Resources 

to Optimize the Organization through Development of the Department’s Key Administrators 

Joe Doty 

Gretchen E. Nester 

Colleen Cullen 

Monique H.S. Gaines 

Presentation 

Content 




Northwestern group was outstanding and innovative! 

As an HR professional I loved this. Appreciate that HR is being recognized as a strategice partner! This 

was an excellent session. 

interesting topic 

203. Using an EMR to Automate the Inpatient Medical Coding Process: Efficiancy through Automation 

Valeda B. Dixon 

Stacy Alderman 

Presentation 

Content 





An interesting discussion of the pros and cons of EMR and how, in the future, we may be able to use 

systems for education. However, these systems do not yet exist so much of the discussion was theoretical 

rather than practical. Would be nice to hear a perspective on how the current less-than-optimal EMRs 

might be used more effectively while awaiting the necessary advancements. 

A great session....very impressed by what has been accomplished. 

Was a nice look at one way, more useful may have been a few ways 

Great job very helpful 

204. The Journey to Medical Home 

Joanne Riley 

Deborah Simak 

Presentation 

Content 




Very detailed and informative. I appreciated the speakers sharing both the basics of the medical home and 

their step by step process toward certification. However, it was most interesting to note the blind points 

particular to various institutions. Before boasting that you didn’t add staff to get certified, you should 

compare to peers. I think you would find that you had a thick compliment of administrative staff to start. I 

would like to hear at future meetings whether you have seen an improvement in the health of your patients 

post-certification. Does all the tracking and tools you implemented make any difference? Great talk! 

Very thoughtful and informative session. I wish we were as far along as Pitt. 

Needed more financial return on investment info 

AIM Plenary Session II, “The APM Physician-Scientist Initiative: How to Promote the Initiative and Can 

Departments Afford It?” 

Andrew I. Schafer, MD 


Mark L. Zeidel, MD 

William J. Bremner, MD, PhD 


Presentation 

Content 




Need for strong mentoring really hit home. 

I think this is so imporatant for administrators to understand...this is what makes academics! 

While the content is interesting and extremely important to Internal Medicine, I would have liked it to be a 

bit more dynamic. At times, physician scientists can be standing at a podium as if they were reading off a 

scientific study. 

An intersting topic,, nice to hear differnt point of views. wasnt fully applicable for administrators 

Great choices of panelists. 

Honestly this topic was not of much interest to me nor did it stimulate much more interest. 

AIM Workshop Session III 




301. Challenges in Implementing a Web-Based Physician Scheduling System 

Karen Sniadecki 

Presentation 

Content 

6.00 from four responses 

6.00 from four responses 


I was a little disappointed that the solution was an expensive software package. Most Divisions cannot 

afford to implement such things. I was hoping that there would be more to the talk than throw money at it. 

302. Measuring and Motivating Physician Productivity Using Individual Profit and Loss Statements 


Presentation 

Content 




Nice job on a complex topic. 

Difficult topic to address; examples were good; but too specific to one institution. 

Ms. Ealy’s talk was clear and thoughtful. I very much appreciated the detail she shared with us, and the 

handouts made it easy to see how this tool could be applied in our setting. Frustrating was the fact that 

many in the audience seemed to misuderstand the application of the P&L. She could have been slightly 

more assertive in controlling the room. On the other hand, it was interesting to hear from others regarding 

their uses of P&Ls. Perhaps this would be useful as a group presentation next time. 

I like Univ of Pittsburgh handouts - its very helpful that they share how they report on things and would 

encourage other schools to do the same when presenting anything related to reporting/data. It helps give a 

great visual. 

303. Comparing and Contrasting Medicine Departments—Three Administrators’ Perspectives 

Luis Rivera 

Joe Doty 


Presentation 

Content 




Good session. I would do it again with other departments. Format was excellent. Good way to compare 

across the departments. 

I would of preferred if they had chosen a program that didn’t look so similar size and demographic wise 

(large programs in big cities). I would of like more on what the differences meant - easier, harder etc 

Although I could have downloaded the presentation beforehand, the slides were a bit challenging to read 

with the amount of data included. 

Interesting topic. nice to hear different institution perspectives. would recommend similar for next year 

Had 3 large private schools for comparison - should have included a public for more dramatic comparison. 

304. Challenges Incentive Compensation Models by Specialty 

Deborah Winn-Horivitz 

Presentation 

Content 





Need to repeat and have multiple presenters with different models. 

Liked the presentation and the content. It was very interesting to hear the approach. 

Would like to hear some of the challenges that they faced and how they over came them. 

Deborah did a great job of presenting her institution’s incentive plan. It seemed a fair & equitable system. I 

think it is successful also because of the institution. 

Lunch and AIM Distinguished Lecture 

Catherine G. Wood, Moderator 

Dale W. Davenport 

Presentation 

Content 




Dale was the best ever!! Please repeat next year! 

WOW. I need a ten to give it. Dale brought me to tears. It was so sad that not everyone could of heard 

that talk. 

Dale was awesome, sorry people missed it because Dales address was GREAT and right on! kudos dale! 

This lunch should have never been scheduled as the last thing of the conference, particularly since there 

was a Distinguished lecture. It was embarrassing that only about 25% of all attendees stuck around 

because of the Distinguished lecture. The low turnout should have been anticipated based on previous 

years’ attendance on the last day. 

Dale Davenport gave a very thoughtful speech. Top shelf person to pick. I wish it could have been better 

attended, as I think he had a message each administrator could take home. Possibly in the future you may 

be able to have people rsvp if they can attend last session. It seemed there were empty tables. I wish he 

could give an encore presentation at the next AIM meeting. 

Excellent talk-one of the best of the conference by someone who is clearly experienced in their profession. 

Let’s not end with the Distinguished Lecture luncheon again. Too many people had left by then, it was a 

very small turnout and I felt bad for Dale. He gave a great talk! 

Please provide specific examples and suggestions to improve future AAIM meetings: 

Consider a minimal handout, e.g., a page with session objectives and perhaps references, with sessions, 

especially with workshops. They can be very helpful in keeping the learning focused. 

great meeting, runs well 

Encourage active involvement in workshops and arrange for room set-up that facilitates this. 

I really like remediation lectures and how to identify students having academic problems earlly 

Larger workshop rooms.....rooms were crowded 

Find a facility with adequate space. The Philadelphia Downtown Marriott did not have adequate space for 

plenaries or breakout sessions. Both were cramped and uncomfortable. 

I thought the cdim organization was well done this year. good flow to the meeting. keep the joint 

workshop time. 

Ask people to rank that workshop sessions in their order of interest so that if there is high interest for one 

particular section, that a larger room may be selected so that everyone is not standing in the back or sitting 

on the floor. Please continue to make the handouts and presentations available ahead of time. It is 

appreciated. 

it seems that all the workshops I was interested in were given at the same time; could there be multiple 

presentations of “the best” workshops so wouldn’t have to miss them 

Starting the CDIM Meeting on Friday AM, rather than Thursday PM was a nice change. Rooms were 

narrow and small. Lunch at pre-course was inadequate - there was none left by the time we got out of our 

meeting. More network time. 

I liked the breakouts that were more like workshops, more of how to with tools and how to use them 


If we have joint meetings with APDIM there needs to be larger meeting rooms for workshops. Workshops 

tended to be large and overcrowded. 

Fewer, perhaps larger (by ~10 persons) workshops 

good plenary topics, joint program offerings were a bit skewed toward resident education. Would like to 

see more inclusive, broad based educational and leadership perspectives 

There were several workshops that I wanted to attend but didn’t get to as they were only offered once. It 

would be nice to offer some of them more than once. One option would be to consider using Camtasia so 

that everyone could review all talks even if they could not be at each one. 

None - it was great! 

would have loved to hear more about healthcare reform and how it could affect academic medicine and 

medicine in general. also, i left the hospitalist session and went to the how to write a letter of 

recommendation session late- the letter session was so helpful and fun, but i since i couldn’t evaluate both 

sessions i wanted to write about it here. 

Better facility and location the temperature varied greatly, rooms were not appropriately sized. 

SOOO many good workshops at the joint session, maybe make those over two days for more opportunities 

to attend, there were a number of competing workshops that I would have liked to attend 

The meeting space for the individual sessions was too small. For the large group sessions. Those in the 

back could not hear at all. 

Not having handouts immediately available felt someone handicapping. Perhaps having computer stations 

with high-speed printers available would be a cost-effective compromise to giving everybody hard copies 

of everything? 

Would recommend a space (conference center) with tables in the rooms for workshops. This allows breakout 

groups to form much more quickly and easily 

more time in between workshops and main meetings as hard to get from one to the other 

I was a bit disappointed with the hotel - specifically the lack of wi-fi and the need to pay for wired internet 

access. Many professionals in one place being nickeled and dimed to death is not appropriate. 

none 

Provide better information about local restaurants and things to do.....ask the directors from the city to 

provide info. Hotel personnel not always the most helpful persons. Please encourage everyone to post 

their workshop handouts. Since I cannot attend them all, I can learn from the handouts. Also....several 

workshops ran out of handouts....need to print more or provide on website. My administrators say that the 

Admin workshops for clerkship coordinators are too repetitive and simplistic, year to year......the group 

needs to brainstorm on more creative ideas. 

CDIM Workshop rooms were too small for the events. Otherwise enjoyed all the sessions. Exhibit hall and 

food worked well. 

APDIM should do a review of the educational literature like CDIM does CDIM should select awards via 

nominations like APDIM does. 

The hotel was beautiful...rooms, lobby. Food for conference was excellent, but conference facilities were 

far too small. The small group sessions were jammed. Even the plenary sessions had people shoulder to 

shoulder. It would’ve been more enjoyable if there were tables in front of chairs for plenary sessions. 

didn’t like the CDIM workshop topics as much as past meetings. I am always impressed with the quality of 

teaching 

CDIM length this year was great - 1.5 days + precourse 

Insure reasonable space for attendees at workshops; rooms this year were unrealistically small 

combine the programs by time so that you can more easily see all the options available; better room 

temperature control 

meeting was excellent. The combined AAIM has benefits, but CDIM has lost it’s small group feel. Would 

recommend only one joint large group session in addition to lunch. Also, morning plenaries are preferrable 

around tables not in rows of chairs. 

Simultaneous workshops can sometimes mean that we can only attend on of to two or three workshops one 

is greatly interested in attending. 

Some rooms were too small for the number that attended the workshop and others were sparsely attended. 

Not sure how to fix that. 


igger rooms, for at least 2 of the breakout sessions, I could see nothing, they ran out of handouts and I sat 

on the floor 

a session where each specialty can mmet. I had a difficult time finding people from the same specialty. 

Divide procedural:nonprocedural to smaller grouping such GIM/family med/hosp, 

allergyu/pulmonary/sleep/cc, gi/ob, etc 

I’d like to talk more about t he future and strategic planning. I’ve been a DA for 5 years, I know operational 

details. What about challenges in the new resident workforce; or how will we attract quailty candidates to 

your hospitalist program; or what can we do to make medical school more affordable and attractive to 

future students? 

Having lunch the last day of AIM seems like a HUGE waste of money--should be discontinued. 

I like to attend APDIm meetings separate from AAIM... seems like there are too many groups and agendas 

at AAIM 

I thought this year’s conference had great topics for the breakout sessions. It was difficult to decide which 

ones to attend. Nice job to the planning committee. 

I would shorten some of the sessions - often times 60 minutes would be enough; 2 hour sessions are too 

long; make sure that there are always Q&A throughout and not just at the end of the sessions; start at 9am 

on all days - 

I really appreciated the badges it made finding AIM members much easier. I think finding relevant topics 

for all audiences for large sessions is very hard...it may be better served to have less of these and more 

smaller sessions. It is hard b/c I wanted to go to several sessions that occured at same time...I am not sure 

how you reslove that but it would help. 

Consider recording workshops presentations on CD and offering for sale. There are often two workshops 

of interest scheduled at the same time. With a CD, I could listen at a later time. 

Sitting at a conference for a few days can be tiring. While I appreciate the topics / content - they could be a 

bit more dynamic. As administrators in busy, complex institutions, perhaps we all have a fast pace day. 

more formal networking opportunities more workshops & plenary sessions with physician and 

administrative leadership 

It would be beneficial to begin the meetings slightly later (primarily due to west coast travel to the east 

coast). The Marriott hotel was very expensive for the guests. 

I didn’t understand why only 3 of the 5 Alliance members were at the conference. I preferred it when it 

was just AIM but if we are forced to do the conference as an Alliance, then all the associations should be 

present. 

Maybe not have a lunch on the last day at the last session, attendance dwindles to 25% 

1. More opportunities for tools/methods sharing. 2. greater detail of what will be discussed at special 

interest groups, or 3. special interest groups based around specific areas of interest or problems rather than 

job title 4. more protein at breakfast, less pastry 5. Please invite Dr. Klotman to speak to us everytime -- 

he is delightful 6. I did not have a chance to attend the networking reception, partly because I was unsure 

of the dress code. Please indicate next time. 

Internet access throughout the hotel. More joint workshop sessions among the organizations represented. 

In special interest groups, have a sign in sheet with email addresses so people can connect later with the 

speaker. Its disappointing that the listserve is no longer available - I found it very helpful to just email 

colleagues directly. The timing of the am sessions should be at 9am instead of 8am keeping west coast in 

mind. The board members should be more interactive with especially new AIM members so that they feel 

comfortable and want to come back. Location - please pick something that is not in a town or near a center 

where its dangerous. Had an experience close to the hotel and was uncomfortable walking around at night 

unlike prior meetings at other cities. All slides of presentations should be up by a week before the meeting 

so that they can be downloaded. Only 50% or so of AIM were. More exhibitors of products that people 

talk about during their presentations. I know this may be COI but often some automated tools would be 

brought up during the meeting and it would be great if those exhibtors were there so that we could view 

everything a certain tool does. Good topics this year - i was able to find something I liked at almost every 

session so well done with the selections. Breakfast - please improve. It was not even to the level of 

continental. I’d rather see some buffet lunches in order to get better breakfast. Sorry for all the criteque - I 

did enjoy myself at the conference and overall thought it was well planned! 


get a head count for last day lunches to save food. Provide tables for breakfast 

There was nothing on healthcare reform, ARRAA. Need more business oriented programs to compete with 

MGMA 

Include a summary of the institution/Department/Division in the list of attendees so that indivudals can 

focus on finding those who may be best to discuss current problems (public/private, hospital affiliation, # 

faculty, annual budget). 

best meeting ever - useful 

The topics need to be interesting and the speakers, especially the workshop leaders, need to be experts, at 

least a little bit more than the attendees. The workshop sessions titles were incredibly boring; more so than 

at previous meetings (I have been attending regularly for 6 years and this was the worst selection I have 

seen in that time). Also, there was one session that i really wanted to attend (the one on recruitment) but 

there was no space at all even to get into the room, so I ended up going to something else. THe session 

on having difficult conversations was really interesting and well done. I wish more sessions would be like 

that one. Every workshop involves breaking up into small groups - this doesn’t always work, probably 

because the leaders are not more active about directing people. Many of the workshops are disappointing 

because the leaders are really no more experienced in the topic than us (and I still think of myself as a 

junior guy). I come out thinking that they had no business trying to teach us anything. This is really 

frustrating, because I consider the APDIM meetings to be prime times for career development. Many times, 

it seems like just a way for some of these workshop leaders to get some “scholarship” on their CV but not 

actually benefit us attendees. Workshops I have attended in the past that really had a great impact, just as 

examples: Procedure teaching (Diane Wayne) a few years ago; Humanities (Aronowitz, I think). These 

were interesting and really well done. They are becoming exceptions. 

Philadelphia Marriott Downtown is a very nice hotel (both the public areas and proximity to tourist areas) 

and the meeting areas are well situated BUT I was very disappointed in the actual room amenities. For the 

price, the bed was way too soft, the towels were thin and threadbare, the bathroom implements were cheap 

plastic, the furniture was “bargain” level. I was very surprised - don’t remember that from the last meeting 

there a few years ago. 

I do like to see national speakers as anchors. 

A very good meeting with excellent choices of workshops and an excellent venue 

Sometimes a bit too much time between sessions but I understand it is helpful to have this breathing room. 

My opinion of the meeting site--good food! For once, the conference rooms were not freezing. Thanks for 

the reminders to turn off cell phones (although they still went off). 

A more rigorous sign up process would allow for adequate space for interested parties to attend workshops. 

Really enjoyed this meeting and Philadelphia. Staff did a great job. Without a hitch. 

Meeting is better when it is over 2 days rather than 3 days 

very well put together except very minor issues 

I would welcome advanced training on how to evaluate the competencies.... What is the difference between 

systems-based-practice and practice-based-learning anyway....... 

there should only be one yearly meeting - we don’t need two. the workshops should be shortened to 45 min 

and we should be able to double the number we attend. 

EIP programs should present their updates/innovations early on in the apdim program. 

the conference could have been shorter by packing more in on each day. saw no reason to stretch to 

Sunday when some of those sessions could have been done on the previous evening or save the assemblys 

or something...not sure, but too much time without much to do. 

confirm size of rooms and project crowds. 

Would have been nice to be able to view more talk presentations ahead of time; only a minority were 

available on site. even a draft version of the final would be helpful to give a flavor of what the speakers will 

cover to help determine which workshop to attend. in general, there were too many workshops per session, 

and either more repetition of those sessions rated by mtg organizers as most likley to be popular would be 

nice, and/or having more frequent (? shorter) workshops to be able to attend more. 

More workshops and less plenary sessions. More specific, helpful info, less overviews. 

Please don’t give too much downtime during APDIm there were many sessions that could have been 

repeated so that we could attend, Friday morning was a complete waste of our time 


put posters on the website to review because there are too many to visit 

For content-related material, do follow up questions with an ARS. 

Would prefer to have handouts available in advance, rather than having to take notes. I understand that this 

would increase paper use. 

I would love more examples of attempts to demonstrate milestone acheivment in residents 

mandate that the seminar leaders have more interactive parts of their sessions; or 1.5 hours is too long 

I found very few of the topics interesting. Because of this I looked at the CDIM and AIM courses but 

found that their topics were scheduled at different times. 

As a program director, I look to obtain meaningful content that I can utilize to perform my job more 

effectively. Many times the presentations lack meaningful substance and have too much conjecture or 

philosophy (which is OK to a point). I believe that the public policy update, APDIM survey and the CBET 

plenary session all fell short on substance. 

Shorter presentations 

Have a forum for EIP overviews I still worry that the needs of commnity programs are being 

underrepresented. 

Bigger rooms for large sessions so there is enough seating for all. 

Idea sharing with focused topics. I think you guys are great. I love these meetings. 

Certain work shops to be offered on several occasions during the conference. 

i would really like to see the fall apdim meeting during the work week. it is too difficult to work all week, 

travel to the meeting and return back to work. the meeting is work. It is not relaxing. with children at home 

(and it appears that the meeting attendees are getting younger) this is essential. 

I attended E-Learning Task Force planning meeting Sat 9-12. 

The more mixing the better 

More fellowship-specific workshops 

More of the larger sessions rather than the workshops which are of variable quality 

The hotel should have free WiFi.... 

There needs to be a little time between Awards luncheon and afternoon workshop presentations 

I think that the poster sessions should be much bigger and should vary each evening. I would like more 

information about the interest groups so that I can chose among them. 

reinvigorate ACCM; rotation of the community hospital chair 

Get back together with ACP. I can’t go to both 

Rooms were not well set up for workshops with breakout small groups. Additionally at this meeting they 

were too small and often standing room only. 

more diversity of opinion 

I REALLY liked the coffee being available in relative abundance during the breaks. Consider moving it 

into the plenary halls for the morning sessions. 

the program this year was boring, not stimulating at times there was not much to do and sometimes i felt 

like that my time is being wasted 

this was a very good meeting 

I thought the AV was good, and staff did a fabulous job. 

All workshops should include small group discussions. This improves the audience’s ability to maintain 

attention and adds networking opportunities. This should be a mandate when workshops are scheduled. 

Pure lecture style “workshops,” even those that involve voluntary large group participation. 

Philadelphia Marriott was great (nice size, easy to find conference rooms, close to a lot of shops, 

transportation etc) except for no WiFi! 

Initially I found the format of three different meetings confusing. This was also something I heard from 

another participant. Perhaps less use of abbreviations would be helpful, at least for new comers. 

Plenary sessions, in general, are neither rich nor transformative. The emphasis on plenaries is completely 

out of whack. The workshops help me become a better program director, educator and leader. The plenaries 

do not. If we are looking for “outcomes” in our profession group, as in our residencies, then please greatly 

de-emphasize the plenaries and emphasize the workshops. Since I attended the RRC update (informational, 


not a workshop), I only got to attend 2 workshops. This is neither what I am looking for nor what I need. 

Unless this changes, I will start attending the meetings only sporadically 

more opportunities for repeat workshops 

What topics would you like to see addressed at future AAIM meetings? 

How to design medical school vision and goals in keeping with LCME requirements. 

great meeting, runs well 

patient involvement in medical education; teaching patient-centered care and the medical home 

Medical school expansion in the setting of budgetary constraints. 

The impact of the electronic medical record on the medical student in the hospital setting..is it 

compromising their clinical skills.... 

A CDIM plenary on the topic of “should student evaluations of faculty be anonymous?” 

Cutting the cord--when to disenroll students from medical school. Medical School Education Reform 100 

yrs post Flexner--is medical school broken or is it the environment? 

1. Helping students to develop their personal learning porfolios 2. Helping 4th year students transition into 

internship 

Technology enhanced educational topics 

Would like to see topics to empower Clerkship Coordinators to better assist Clerkship Directors 

Teaching residents to teach Using Camtasia and other electronic media for teaching 

teaching lifelong learning skills to students and residents, incorporating systems based practice education 

on gme and ume levels, career advising and development for ume/gme. 

salaries/FTE /protected time---is there a consensus...? 

healthcare reform/political issues 

Would continue to emphasize educational research and innovation through the CDIM meetings--there is a 

strong and sustained tradition of this venue as an important forum for the development of young 

investigators and scholars. 

Provide scheduled networking opportunities /discussion forums for individuals to develop collaborative 

research or projects. 

The pros and cons of performance assessment. 

Student Advocacy 

EMR use for students (including how to evaluate clinical reasoning in templated notes); use of Sim Man; 

developing action plans to link to feedback after direct observation (beyond “read more on X”) 

professionalism 

I know that theory is a big part of this type of meeting, but many of the discussions I attended were big on 

discussion of problems, but a bit thin on giving specifics for solutions. 

Analysis of the dean’s letter - what to PD’s look for. Chair letters....why do PD’s continue to want these 

rather than LOR’s from someone the student actually worked with? Use of simulation/teaching procedures 

in clerkships...necessary? More on integrated clerkships. More on sub-internship rotations and creative 

curriculum ideas. 

The pros and cons of early clinical exposure 

1) Remediation strategies 2) Improving student satisfaction 

(1) what are career paths for site directors and clerkship directors after 5-10 years in that job? (2) what are 

mechanisms to get feedback on your students once they go to residency programs all over the country? 

continued emphasis on CBET across the continnum; evaluation and assessment; curriculum development 

Professionalism in Digital Age workshop created a lot of conversation. I would like to see this as the point 

counterpoint plenary session, i.e. should we have policies regarding the use of social media with residents 

and students? should we let our students/residents “friend” us, should we let our patient’s “friend” us, etc. 

“Should we be graduating ALL medical students?” (or should we only be graduating doctors whom we feel 

comfortable referring our family members to”. 

The best ways to remediate learners with deficits of certain skills such as medical knowledge, clinical 

reasoning, interpersonnal and communication skills, professionalism, etc. 


Standard grade distributions for all IM clerkships with a taskforce to discuss and set standards (i.e. 25% 

honors, 40% high pass, etc) Also, LCME competencies and anchoring language that could be used for 

different stages of learners. I.e. LCME 2nd year competencies, LCME 3rd year competencies, with a 

consensus of what each year should be capable of. 

compare IC plan in diff institutions, writing a business plan, impact of technology in operations 

(accounability, efficiency, tranparency, etc) 

Best practices in Grants Mgmt, Finance, Coding, othre mission areas. Bright Ideas sessions re Tools that 

can be developed and shared in mission areas. 

Finance management. see how other medical institutions manage their finance, such as how to make 

breakeven, how to evaluate the physician’s work. etc. 

Always interested to dive more into departmental tax and funding structures as well as financial system and 

tools that people are using 

More on consolidatation, staff benchmarking, in light of Dale’s presentation maybe more on leadership 

(perhaps a panel) 

Health care reform. 

patient throughput - how best to improve or best practice aligning incentives - chiefs and administrators 

more multi institutional perspectives 

Departmental investments in faculty career development awards from the Chair’s and Administrator’s 

perspectives. 

More Chair- Administrator interaction sessions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New healthcare bill and ramifications for the AMC and its physicians 

Continuous Improvement Programs; Working with the quality team at your institution; Coping with largescale 

change -- things to consider when approaching overhauls of organizations; Toxic Leadership -- how 

to deal with those awful faculty who somehow landed in powerful roles; how to get faculty buy-in for 

changes to clinical processes; or how do we get clinical faculty think they are part of the team, and not just 

players on a rented field?; What do you measure? a comparison across organizations that track different 

indicators of success; Challenges to clinical operations in the academic setting 

Financial Administration - various approaches to taxing disciplines. 

Devote a larger block of time for interest groups. So much is discussed at those sessions that a 1-1/2 hour 

session just isn’t long enough. 

I would like to see more information on clinical matters. 

EMR and Mineable data Production targets for teaching faculty 

The authority of the chairman overriding the program director’s decisions 

How about more career development for Associate Program Directors? Actually HELPFUL sessions on 

writing up programmatic innovations, for example. How to get published. What are the journals in our 

field? (Maybe APDIM should have its own journal). I have attended workshops that attempt to do this, but 

they have not helped. They are pretty unwieldy, especially after we break up into small groups. I want to 

build a career as a medical educator and I feel like APDIM rarely helps me. 

More attention on how programs oversee fellowships at PD level (plenty of attention at PA level). 

Funding Options for GME given Health Care Reform proposals 

Integration of medical education with medical school and residency curriculum 

IOM 16 hour requirement...how did they do it pt centered medical home 

faculty development and mentoring 

Preparing residents for the real world...how to teach them the things we aren’t allowed to. 

For APDIM web site: send a mass email when the web site is updated (E tools, Survey results, etc.) to 

remind us of the great resources there. 

Self directed learning evaluation models. 

more specific discussions of admitting systems that meet duty hour regulations as well as educational 

objectives 

Incenting Faculty to teach in a productivity environment 

same subject area 

More ambulatory topics 


Use of Portfolios for monitoring milestones. More on EMR and residency training. 

more topics related to primary care curriculum 

DVD’s of Masters giving feedback, making teaching/bedside rounds, giving bad news, dealing with dying, 

dealing with drug seekers, dealing with angry patients, with group discussions and follow up multiple 

choice test to emphasis pearls. 

How to document problems with a resident effectively so that there is no difficulty discontinuing their 

contract. Recruiting teaching attendings... do we pay them? Examples of call schedules that comply 

with the 80 hour work rule. Curriculum for teaching attendings to use. 

Curriculum redesign, efficient use of staff resources 

Portfolios 

Career development for PDs/APDs 

conversations between the organizations (APM and APDIM, for example) - Maybe have all sessions open 

to all participants. I might have learned some interesting stuff from the CDIM workshops. 

nothing comes to mind that you’re not thinking of. 

How to improve daily teaching/management rounds with residents. 

GME funding (in more detail) 

Faculty development 

faculty development; how PDs can be ‘teach the teachers for faculty development; how they can lead fac 

development initiatives at their institution 

Can we have the APDIM listserve back? 

Continuity as the organizing principle of medical education. presenter David Hirsh 

Topics related to administrators/coordinators who multi-task between students, residents, and/or fellows-- 

this requires high competency and organizational skills. 

art of teaching 

The topics are excellent. I would like to see APDIM address in a plenary session, the issue that all the 

different “special interest groups” in residency may be working against one another. 

More focused faculty development “curricula.” Continue work on clarification of ACGME guidelines and 

criteria. 

Supervision of trainees 

Health Policy Projects 

collaboration between CDIM & APDIM: more communication and collaboration between the two groups 

would be hugely helpful for internal medicine as a whole 

More geared to community programs and those with fmg’s 

More on CBET...this is what we need to do (after we get over the distraction of duty hours). 

ambulatory rotation, professionalism and remediation, different remediations, morning reports 

we need a series of “how tos” on implementing the new program requiremetns--getting meaningful 

feedback from patients, educating key faculty as evaluators-- 

More Milestone-based assessment tools and evaluation structure and process 

Development of core faculty as advisors 

APDIM has done a superb job of varying topics year to year while maintaining emphasis on commonly 

encountered issues for PDs. 

APDIM should include discussion about residency retreats and how these can be used to enhance teaching 

the core competencies. APDIM should also offer workshops as an alternative activity while committee 

meetings are occurring. 

Novel funding sources Systems based approaches to increased patient safety that can be utilized in 

residency programs Available colloborative efforts that multiple programs could participate in, especially 

community programs 

1. how to podcast core lectures 2. how to post morning report and core lectures on line 3. how to create 

patient registries to facilitate resident QI projects 4. how to develop, create and post on-line learning 

modules for residents 

workshop about residents’ daily schedule and how to make that work. 


Evaluations of AIM Educational Conferences 

7 

5.75 

5.8 

5.67 

5.95 

5.84 

5.88 

5.66 

5.79 

5.46 

5.41 

5.42 

5.7 

5.59 

5.78 

5.33 

4.96 

5.82 

5.84 

5.67 

5.37 

5.62 

5.76 

5.48 

5.51 

5.4 

5.43 

5.13 

4.93 

5.63 

5.78 

5.52 

5.65 

6.08 

6.09 

5.98 

6.15 

5.77 

5.87 

5.67 

5.66 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

Content 

Speakers 

Material 

Facility 

1 

0 

1999 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

AIM Program Planning Committee Meeting 


3:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT 

Room 303 



Notes from Committee Meeting 

Current Meeting Feedback (Committee Chair Joe Doty specifically asked for negative feedback only): 

Small rooms for some sessions 

No Internet availability/access in session rooms 

First plenary session too long 

No special interest group for operations manager, business manager, etc. 

First networking reception too late, did not like the cash bar 

Non-procedural special interest group meeting room set up not conducive to interaction 

Need stronger moderators for special interest groups 

Unable to attend sessions at other meetings (APDIM and CDIM) because they happen at the 

same time as the AIM sessions 

Did not see a lot of “cross-meeting” activity 

Noise at the hotel 

Should consider holding some sessions more than once 

Should ask participants in advance which workshops they plan to attend to better gage the 

room sizes 

Dislike online evaluations. Believe there would be a higher response rate with paper, in-hand 

evaluations at the meeting 

Should have a moderator at each table during networking meals 

Missed topical areas to consider: 

Research administration 

Best practices for clinical trial budgets 

“What Do I Do Now?” extreme scenarios session (ex. What do I do when one of my physicians 

makes a big mistake?) 

Quality improvement 

Working with a clinic or outpatient manager 

Business plan development 

Strategic planning 

Compensation plans 

Other notes/comments: 

Want to work to update the membership database to better populate special interest groups 

More use of discussion boards, specialized bulletins to special interest groups

Background Material for December 7 Conference Call - Alliance for ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?