|
About AAEM
|
Board Meeting Minutes
American Academy of Emergency Medicine
Minutes of Board of Directors Conference Call
December 9, 2002
IN ATTENDANCE: Joseph Wood, MD, JD; Robert McNamara, MD; A. Antoine Kazzi,
MD; Tom Scaletta, MD; Anthony DeMond, MD; James Li, MD; Geoffrey Mitchell,
MD; Raymond Roberge, MD; Kevin Rodgers, MD; Paul Sierzenski, MD; Jason
May, MD. Absent: Carol Barsky, MD; Howard Blumstein, MD; William Durkin,
Jr., MD. Staff: Kay Whalen and Beth Wilson.
Approval of October 26, 2002 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
Dr. Wood began by welcoming everyone to the call. The Board members all
welcomed Dr. Wood to the call as well. The Board then turned its attention
to the first agenda item. Dr. Rodgers moved and Dr. Mitchell seconded
that the October 26, 2002 Board of Directors minutes be approved.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
President's Report
Dr. Wood noted that he should be able to return to work in the next few
weeks following his recent illness. He then asked Dr. McNamara to report
on the AAEM Smallpox Task Force.
Dr. McNamara reported that Greg Moran, MD, and David Karras, MD, were
spearheading the AAEM Smallpox Task Force. AAEM's committee was working
in tandem with SAEM and CORD on this issue. Dr. Moran would be representing
AAEM on a conference call regarding this issue with the CDC.
Dr. Wood reported that he had taken the opportunity to speak in Orange
County as well as at the Louisiana chapter of AAEM. In both venues, he
was warmly received.
Treasurer's Report
Dr. Scaletta then presented the October 31, 2002 financial statements.
Since there had been little activity since the October Board meeting,
there was limited discussion. Dr. Scaletta moved and Dr. Mitchell seconded
that the Treasurer's Report be approved. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Membership Report
Ms. Whalen reported that 2003 dues were beginning to be received. At
this early date, full voting members were 73% above last year's figures
at this point in time while associate members were 39% ahead.
PhyAmerica Update
The Board then discussed the PhyAmerica bankruptcy situation and its
possible effects on AAEM members. Once again, AAEM members were asking
for help in starting democratic groups. Dr. Scaletta suggested that AAEM
Services be asked to develop a mechanism to assist members in this endeavor.
Ms. Whalen noted that the AAEM Services Board needs to be reconstituted.
Dr. Wood appointed Drs. McNamara, Scaletta and Durkin to this Board. Dr.
Wood would also serve ex officio. Dr. Kazzi moved and Dr. McNamara seconded
that Dr. Wood's appointees to the AAEM Services Board be approved by
the full AAEM Board. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Prudent Layperson Statement
Dr. Li then asked the Board if AAEM should define what the "Prudent
Layperson" standard should be. Dr. Wood asked Dr. Li to look into
this issue further and to bring a proposed plan of action to the next
Board meeting.
Sitges/Barcelona Update
Dr. Kazzi then turned the Board's attention to the draft of the First
Announcement of the Sitges/Barcelona meeting. The invited speakers were
once again some of the most recognized names in Emergency Medicine. Dr.
Kazzi had already sent an e-mail message announcing this meeting and encouraging
people to register on the website.
Resident Section
The minutes from the last Resident Section meeting were included in the
agenda materials. Dr. May requested funds of $1,100 from AAEM to have
a special Resident Section into each issue of Common Sense. Dr. McNamara
moved and Dr. Li seconded that $1,100 be budgeted in 2003 for a special
Resident Section insert in Common Sense. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
AAEM Code of Ethics
Dr. Scaletta stated that he felt the AAEM Code of Ethics
should be included in AAEM's bylaws to give them more prominence. Therefore,
Dr. Scaletta moved and Dr. McNamara seconded that Article XIII be added
to the bylaws as follows:
Article XIII
American Academy of Emergency Medicine
Code of Ethics
The Code of Ethics of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (the
"Academy") applies to the Academy and its members and is enforceable
solely by the Academy.
The primary purpose of this Code of Ethics is to support
the Academy's Mission Statement which is:
The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) is the specialty
society of Emergency Medicine. AAEM is a democratic organization committed
to the following principles:
-
Every individual should have unencumbered access to quality
emergency care provided by a specialist in Emergency Medicine.
-
The practice of Emergency Medicine is best conducted by a specialist
in Emergency Medicine.
-
A specialist in Emergency Medicine is a physician who has achieved,
through personal dedication and sacrifice, certification by either
the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) or the American
Osteopathic Board of Emergency Medicine (AOBEM).
-
The personal and professional welfare of the individual specialist
in Emergency Medicine is a primary concern to AAEM.
-
AAEM supports fair and equitable practice environments necessary
to allow the specialist in Emergency Medicine to deliver the highest
quality of patient care. Such an environment includes provisions
for due process and the absence of restrictive covenants.
-
AAEM supports the growth of residency programs and graduate
medical education, which are essential to the continued enrichment
of Emergency Medicine, and to ensure a high quality of care for
the patient.
Rules and Policies.
The Rules and Policies of Ethics set forth below are
mandatory and specific standards of conduct for all Members of the Academy
in any class of membership. The Rules of Ethics are enforceable by the
Academy.
Rules of Ethics.
Member Conduct.
-
Compliance with Applicable Rules. Members shall at all times
comply with (a) stated rules, policies and other requirements of
the Academy, including without limitation, all provisions of its
Constitution and Bylaws; (b) applicable requirements under federal
and state laws and regulations relating to such Member's status
as a physician, scientist, allied health professional or other;
and (c) applicable rules and requirements of each and every of the
following bodies to whom such Member is subject (a "Governing
Body"):
-
healthcare entities and governing bodies and committees
thereof which conduct professional review activities;
-
boards of medical examiners and comparable bodies with
responsibility for licensing of physicians or allied health
professionals,
-
other self-regulatory organizations and professional societies;
and
-
any other body which is a "board of professional examiners"
or a "professional review body" under the Healthcare
Quality Improvement Act of 1986.
-
Discipline by Other Bodies. Any:
-
censure or reprimand;
-
suspension or termination of a license or membership;
-
suspension or revocation of privileges; or
-
any other finding of bad standing of a Member by any Governing
Body shall constitute a violation of this Code of Ethics.
Commercial Relationships.
A Member's clinical judgment shall not be affected by an economic
interest in, commitment to, or benefit from professionally related
commercial enterprises.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest.
The established policy of the Academy is to require of its officers,
directors, committee/task force chairpersons, senior staff and certain
others appropriate disclosure from time to time declaring any relevant
conflict of interest between his or her Academy position and his or
her involvement, directly or indirectly, with any outside organization,
commercial or noncommercial, which, among other things, may:
a. have significant economic transactions with the Academy;
b. have objectives inconsistent with the purposes of the Academy;
or
c. market products or services for sale to Members or patients
under their care.
Policy and Procedures Regarding Actual or Potential Conflicts of
Interest.
In order for the Academy to most effectively further its mission
and to otherwise maintain its excellent reputation in the medical
community and with the public, it is important that confidence in
the Academy's integrity be maintained, and, in this regard, that the
Academy's decisions and actions not be unduly influenced by any special
interests of individual Members.
This Policy seeks to identify actual or potential conflicts of
interest which might improperly affect Academy activities. Specifically,
this Policy seeks to cover the following three types of possible conflicts
of interest:
1. Interests which may affect (or be affected by) significant
economic transactions to which the Academy is or may be a direct party
(i.e., ownership by an Academy officer of a company from which the
Academy makes major purchases of goods or services).
2. Interests which might cause a representative of the Academy
to abuse an Academy position in order to achieve objectives which
are inconsistent with the purposes of the Academy.
3. Interests which do not relate directly to an interest of the
Academy as an organization but bear significantly on issues of importance
to the Academy membership and about which different components of
the Academy membership might hold widely differing views.
Administrative Procedures
Administrative procedures form the third part of the Code of Ethics.
These procedures provide for the structure and operation of the Ethics
Review Process and they set forth procedures to be followed by the
Board of Directors of the Academy in handling inquiries or challenges
raised under the Rules of Ethics. All Members are required to comply
with these procedures. Failure to cooperate with the Board of Directors
in a proceeding on a challenge may be considered by the Board of Directors
according to the same procedures and with the same sanctions as failure
to observe the Rules of Ethics.
Indemnification and Insurance.
The Academy shall indemnify and hold harmless and defend the Board
of Directors and Academy staff, employees and agents against liability
arising from related activities to the extent provided by the Bylaws
of the Academy or otherwise for directors, officers, members, employees,
staff and agents. The Academy shall maintain insurance in amounts
sufficient for this purpose.
Inquiries and Challenges.
-
Preliminary Review and Disposition. A submission involving this
Code of Ethics (a "submission") may consist of:
-
a request for issuance by the Board of Directors of an advisory
opinion interpreting any provision of this Code of Ethics
(an "inquiry"); or
-
a request for a finding by the Board of Directors that a
member has failed to observe any provision of the Rules of
Ethics under this Code of Ethics (a "challenge").
Submissions may be considered without regard to their means or
form of submission. Submissions relating to information not in the
public domain are not considered unless they are submitted in writing
and signed by their submitters. Submissions may be made by any person
or entity, regardless of whether a Member, including without limitation,
other physicians, healthcare institutions, healthcare reimbursers,
allied health professionals, patients or organizations representing
any of the above. Upon preliminary review of a submission, the President
may conclude, in the Executive Committee's discretion, that the submission:
-
contains insufficient information upon which to base an investigation;
-
would be better suited for consideration by another body (i.e.,
a healthcare entity or governing body or committee thereof, a
governmental or quasi-governmental administrative body, a board
of medical examiners or comparable body, or another self-regulatory
organization) which conducts peer review activities and has jurisdiction
over such matter; or
-
is patently frivolous or inconsequential
In the event of any such conclusion by the President, the submission
shall be disposed of by notice from the President to its submitter.
Investigation.
For each submission involving this Code of Ethics that the President
concludes is valid and actionable, the Board of Directors shall conduct
an investigation into its specific facts or circumstances to whatever
extent is necessary in order to clarify, expand or corroborate the
information provided by the submitter. A Member who is the subject
of a challenge shall be informed in writing at the beginning of the
investigation as to (i) the nature of the challenge, (ii) the obligation
to cooperate fully in the investigation of the challenge, and (iii)
the opportunity to request a hearing on the challenge before the Board
of Directors. Investigations involving challenges shall be conducted
in confidence, with all written communications sealed and marked "Personal
and Confidential," and they shall be conducted objectively, without
any indication of prejudgment. An investigation may be directed toward
any aspect of an inquiry or challenge which is relevant or potentially
relevant. The investigation may include one or more site visits and
informal interviews with the Member who is the subject of the challenge.
Determination of Non-Observance.
The Board of Directors shall make the determination whether a
Member has failed to observe the Rules of Ethics in this Code and
shall impose an appropriate sanction upon the recommendation of the
Ethics Committee arising from a challenge and following an investigation.
Sanctions.
Any of the following sanctions may be imposed by the Board of
Directors upon a Member who the Board of Directors has determined
has failed to observe the Rules of Ethics, although the sanction applied
must reasonably relate to the nature and severity of the non-observance,
focusing upon reformation of the conduct of the Member and deterrence
of similar conduct by others:
reprimand the Member, with publication of the determination
but not the Member's name; suspension of the Member from the Academy for a designated
period, with publication (at the discretion of the Board of Directors)
of the Member's name; or termination of the Member from the Academy, with publication
of the determination and of the Member's name.
addition to and not in limitation of the foregoing, in
any case in which the Board of Directors determines that a Member
has failed to observe the Rules of Ethics, the Board of Directors
may impose the further sanction that the Member shall not be entitled
to sponsor, present, or participate in a lecture, poster, film,
instruction course, panel or exhibit booth at any meeting or program
of or sponsored by the Academy: for a period of up to five (5) calendar years from and after
the effective date a sanction described in clause (1) or (2) of
the paragraph 4(d) is imposed for the first time upon him or her;
Members who are suspended are deprived of all benefits
and incidents of membership during the period of suspension.
Appeal.
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of a determination
by the Board of Directors that a Member has failed to observe the
Rules of Ethics in this Code and of imposition of a sanction, the
affected Member may submit to the Board in writing a request for an
appeal. In such event, the Board of Directors shall establish an appellate
body consisting of at least three (3), but not more than five (5),
Fellows of the Academy who did not participate in the investigation
or in the Board of Directors' determination. The appellate body shall
conduct and complete the appeal within ninety (90) days after receipt
of the request for an appeal.
Overriding Reporting Requirement.
Notwithstanding anything expressly or apparently to the contrary
contained in this Code of Ethics, the Academy shall report such information,
to such agency or agencies, and in such form and manner and frequency
as may from time to time be prescribed by the Healthcare Quality Improvement
Act of 1986 and by regulations promulgated thereunder, all as from
time to time amended, as a condition to the continued availability
to the Academy of the protection from liability for damages afforded
by such Act.
6/25/02
MOTION PASSED 10-0.
Medifax
Dr. Scaletta then asked if the Board was interested in establishing
a relationship with Medifax for transcription services. The Board felt
that this should be pursued through AAEM Services.
Critical Care Medicine Resolution
Dr. McNamara reminded the Board that David Huang had asked
the Board to approve a resolution that would allow EM-trained physicians
to sit for the ABMS critical care exam. Dr. Roberge moved and Dr. McNamara
seconded that the following statement be approved:
The American Academy of Emergency Medicine believes that
ABEM/AOBEM certified emergency physicians who complete an ACGME certified
critical care fellowship should be allowed to take an American board examination
in critical care medicine. We urge ABMS to strongly consider opening the
exam for such emergency physicians.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Templates
In the interest of time, the template initiative of the Texas chapter
will be discussed at a later date.
New Business
Dr. Roberge expressed concern over the recent approval of the AAEM Delaware
Valley chapter. He felt that this chapter could disenfranchise AAEM members
living in western Pennsylvania. Since the formation of this chapter had
already been approved, Dr. McNamara suggested that Dr. Roberge attend
the inaugural meeting of this chapter in New Orleans to suggest a name
change that would be more inclusive.
Dr. Kazzi reported that he and staff had participated in a conference
call with representatives of CEP to establish a Management Academy for
2004. Those on the call felt that this was a worthwhile endeavor.
There being no further business, Dr. Rodgers moved and Dr. Scaletta seconded
that the conference call meeting be adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Whalen
Executive Director
|
About AAEM