We surveyed groups of providers and held focus groups to develop SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis for each model.












Model 1: Absolute MSS Oversight SWOT












Model 2: Partial MSS Oversight SWOT












Model 3: No MSS Oversight SWOT












Model 4: Promotional Only SWOT












No single model emerged as “the best”; it’s up to each provider to figure out the balance that works for them. We did find a schism between the model supporters prefer and the model specialty societies are comfortable with:

Societies who once occupied the “middle ground” of partial to no oversight now see these models as higher risk and more difficult to manage. As a result, organizations are moving to the extreme ends of the 4+1 with providers becoming much more involved in symposia planning, or recusing themselves completely from educational components.

Jacob Coverstone, a member of the IACE/MSS Collaborative Workgroup, is director of education with the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine & Section for Magnetic Resonance Technologists in Berkeley, Calif. In addition to attempting to determine what (if any) best practices exist for hosting satellite symposia, the IACE/MSS Collaborative Workgroup members have tackled the standardization of CME-centric language, established a budget template for CME planning and grant requests, and are currently working on a guidebook for grant submission process.