Every time one of the powers-that-be in CME comes out with an announcement, new rule, or even just a white paper, we all start doing mental gymnastics trying to figure out exactly what the words mean so we can figure out how they'll affect what we do.
After seeing all the confusion surrounding the ABMS white paper, I was inspired to contemplate just why those said powers-that-be can't just tell us what they want in clear, unambiguous language. Part of that contemplation resulted in this issue's editorial, but part of me keeps on wondering why these things have to be so confusing and open to interpretation.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on why this is and, more importantly, what, if anything, those who must abide by the rules can do to encourage clearer communications.
Update: I just read this post on Gaping Void and for some reason it resonated with my thoughts on this whole clarity thing: On Living the Bliss-Centered Life. Instead of "bliss," read "ACCME accreditation criteria" and it pretty much follows what ACCME's executive Murray Kopelow always says, that the accreditor's rules have to have enough leeway in them to allow each organization to figure out how to best apply them to their specific organization and not have to contort themselves to fit some predetermined one-size-fits-all model.
As Hugh says in his post, "Joseph [Campbell] told me to follow my bliss, but he never told me how. He really didn’t have to many concrete tips or pointers. He just told his readers to just do it.
Much to our chagrin, it was something we were just going to have to figure out all by ourselves…"
Granted, I've never heard any equate accreditation with commendation with bliss, but, like so many other things in life, it's one more thing each of us has to figure out for ourselves. OK, Yoda is now signing off...
