User login
ACS issues new primer on medical liability reform
The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Division of Advocacy and Health Policy (DAHP) in December released a new resource on the medical liability system in the U.S. and prospects for reform. The primer is available at https://www.facs.org/advocacy/practmanagement/primers. Surgeons and Medical Liability: A Guide to Understanding Medical Liability Reform represents months of effort by the ACS Legislative Committee, chaired by Don Selzer, MD, FACS; DAHP staff; and several global surgery research associates at the Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
The document includes historical perspectives on the medical liability system, a critical analysis of traditional tort reform, and a review of the alternative reform propositions that policy makers are currently studying and considering. Because neither patients nor providers are well served by the existing liability system, ACS Fellows need to be informed about ongoing challenges, as well as opportunities for implementation of alternative reforms, that are under consideration at both the state and federal level. Additional resources on medical liability reform will be released in the coming months.
The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Division of Advocacy and Health Policy (DAHP) in December released a new resource on the medical liability system in the U.S. and prospects for reform. The primer is available at https://www.facs.org/advocacy/practmanagement/primers. Surgeons and Medical Liability: A Guide to Understanding Medical Liability Reform represents months of effort by the ACS Legislative Committee, chaired by Don Selzer, MD, FACS; DAHP staff; and several global surgery research associates at the Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
The document includes historical perspectives on the medical liability system, a critical analysis of traditional tort reform, and a review of the alternative reform propositions that policy makers are currently studying and considering. Because neither patients nor providers are well served by the existing liability system, ACS Fellows need to be informed about ongoing challenges, as well as opportunities for implementation of alternative reforms, that are under consideration at both the state and federal level. Additional resources on medical liability reform will be released in the coming months.
The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Division of Advocacy and Health Policy (DAHP) in December released a new resource on the medical liability system in the U.S. and prospects for reform. The primer is available at https://www.facs.org/advocacy/practmanagement/primers. Surgeons and Medical Liability: A Guide to Understanding Medical Liability Reform represents months of effort by the ACS Legislative Committee, chaired by Don Selzer, MD, FACS; DAHP staff; and several global surgery research associates at the Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
The document includes historical perspectives on the medical liability system, a critical analysis of traditional tort reform, and a review of the alternative reform propositions that policy makers are currently studying and considering. Because neither patients nor providers are well served by the existing liability system, ACS Fellows need to be informed about ongoing challenges, as well as opportunities for implementation of alternative reforms, that are under consideration at both the state and federal level. Additional resources on medical liability reform will be released in the coming months.
Register for the 2015 Leadership & Advocacy Summit
Registration is now open for the American College of Surgeons (ACS) 2015 Leadership & Advocacy Summit, April 18–21, at the JW Marriott in Washington, DC. The annual Summit is a dual meeting that offers ACS members, volunteer leaders, and advocates comprehensive and specialized educational sessions focused on effective surgeon leadership as well as interactive advocacy training and coordinated visits to congressional offices. The fourth annual Summit will begin with a reception Saturday, April 18.
The Leadership Summit, which convenes April 19, will examine the skills required of surgeon leaders and feature specialized educational sessions with expert speakers who will describe the tools needed for effective leadership at all career levels. Chapter success stories and breakout sessions to identify strategies for development and enhancement of ACS chapters also are planned.
The Advocacy Summit will commence that evening. Retired U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal will serve as the keynote speaker at the dinner meeting and will provide insights into successful leadership. On Monday, April 20, speakers will discuss the political environment in Washington, DC, and across the country, as well as the status of health care issues. Monday also will feature a luncheon sponsored by the ACS Professional Association political action committee (ACSPA- SurgeonsPAC), including a talk by Washington Post political reporter Chris Cillizza. Monday evening, the ACSPA-SurgeonsPAC will host a fundraising event and raffle.
On Tuesday morning, attendees will apply what they have learned at the Summit in face-to-face meetings with their senators and representatives and/or congressional staff. This portion of the program provides an opportunity to rally surgery’s collective grassroots advocacy voice on such issues as physician payment, professional liability, and physician workforce issues.For more information or to register for the 2015 Leadership & Advocacy Summit, go to the ACS website at www.facs.org/advocacy/ participate/summit. The hotel reservation deadline is March 12.
Registration is now open for the American College of Surgeons (ACS) 2015 Leadership & Advocacy Summit, April 18–21, at the JW Marriott in Washington, DC. The annual Summit is a dual meeting that offers ACS members, volunteer leaders, and advocates comprehensive and specialized educational sessions focused on effective surgeon leadership as well as interactive advocacy training and coordinated visits to congressional offices. The fourth annual Summit will begin with a reception Saturday, April 18.
The Leadership Summit, which convenes April 19, will examine the skills required of surgeon leaders and feature specialized educational sessions with expert speakers who will describe the tools needed for effective leadership at all career levels. Chapter success stories and breakout sessions to identify strategies for development and enhancement of ACS chapters also are planned.
The Advocacy Summit will commence that evening. Retired U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal will serve as the keynote speaker at the dinner meeting and will provide insights into successful leadership. On Monday, April 20, speakers will discuss the political environment in Washington, DC, and across the country, as well as the status of health care issues. Monday also will feature a luncheon sponsored by the ACS Professional Association political action committee (ACSPA- SurgeonsPAC), including a talk by Washington Post political reporter Chris Cillizza. Monday evening, the ACSPA-SurgeonsPAC will host a fundraising event and raffle.
On Tuesday morning, attendees will apply what they have learned at the Summit in face-to-face meetings with their senators and representatives and/or congressional staff. This portion of the program provides an opportunity to rally surgery’s collective grassroots advocacy voice on such issues as physician payment, professional liability, and physician workforce issues.For more information or to register for the 2015 Leadership & Advocacy Summit, go to the ACS website at www.facs.org/advocacy/ participate/summit. The hotel reservation deadline is March 12.
Registration is now open for the American College of Surgeons (ACS) 2015 Leadership & Advocacy Summit, April 18–21, at the JW Marriott in Washington, DC. The annual Summit is a dual meeting that offers ACS members, volunteer leaders, and advocates comprehensive and specialized educational sessions focused on effective surgeon leadership as well as interactive advocacy training and coordinated visits to congressional offices. The fourth annual Summit will begin with a reception Saturday, April 18.
The Leadership Summit, which convenes April 19, will examine the skills required of surgeon leaders and feature specialized educational sessions with expert speakers who will describe the tools needed for effective leadership at all career levels. Chapter success stories and breakout sessions to identify strategies for development and enhancement of ACS chapters also are planned.
The Advocacy Summit will commence that evening. Retired U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal will serve as the keynote speaker at the dinner meeting and will provide insights into successful leadership. On Monday, April 20, speakers will discuss the political environment in Washington, DC, and across the country, as well as the status of health care issues. Monday also will feature a luncheon sponsored by the ACS Professional Association political action committee (ACSPA- SurgeonsPAC), including a talk by Washington Post political reporter Chris Cillizza. Monday evening, the ACSPA-SurgeonsPAC will host a fundraising event and raffle.
On Tuesday morning, attendees will apply what they have learned at the Summit in face-to-face meetings with their senators and representatives and/or congressional staff. This portion of the program provides an opportunity to rally surgery’s collective grassroots advocacy voice on such issues as physician payment, professional liability, and physician workforce issues.For more information or to register for the 2015 Leadership & Advocacy Summit, go to the ACS website at www.facs.org/advocacy/ participate/summit. The hotel reservation deadline is March 12.
The Right Choice? The importance of sometimes saying “no”
When I was a resident, one of the surgery faculty who often performed big, high-risk operations liked to say, “If the patient can tolerate a haircut, he can tolerate an operation.” By this, he meant that there were not patients who were too sick for surgery if the operation was indicated. However, over the last 2 decades, I have seen a handful of patients for whom the risks of the operation far outweigh the potential benefits and for whom I have said I am not offering surgery as an option.
Recently, I had a chance to discuss troubling ethics cases with group of thoughtful surgical residents. They raised concerns over the common scenario of being consulted in the middle of the night on the critically ill patient in the intensive care unit for whom the risks of surgery are extremely high. These residents asked the question of whether it is ever acceptable for surgeons to simply refuse to take such patients to the operating room if the alternative to surgery is virtually certain death. The overriding concern among the residents was whether saying “no” to a request for operative intervention in a critically ill patient can ever be justified since the surgeon is essentially “playing God” by not offering the possibility of intervention.
There is no question that there can be very sick patients who have a poor prognosis and the decision is appropriately made to recommend surgery even though the risks are very high. I also believe that there are patients for whom the risks of surgery are so high, and the prospects for a good outcome are so low, that surgery should not be recommended. However, it is important to distinguish two different scenarios. In one scenario, the surgical consultant decides that surgery is an option, but then tries to convince the surrogate decision makers (usually the patient’s family) to decline surgery because of the very high risks. In the second scenario, the surgeon decides that the risks to the patient are so high that it would be wrong to even take the patient to the operating room.
In both scenarios, the patient does not get an operation and in the vast majority of such cases, the patient will die in a short period of time. The question remains whether it is better to give families a choice or not. I believe that posing the question in this manner is misleading and presents a false dichotomy.
Although the distinctions can be subtle, it is critical for the surgeon to decide whether each patient has a high enough chance for survival that the operation is medically justifiable. If the answer is “yes,” then the next question will be one for the surrogate decision makers to decide whether to consent to the surgery or not. Based on the importance of respecting the autonomous choices of patients or their surrogates, it is important that surgeons respect the choice not to have an operation even if one is being recommended. If the answer to the question of whether the operation is medically justifiable is “no,” to offer surgery to family and then try to convince them to decline it by overstating the risks is misleading. Although such a strategy would give the family a sense of control over the situation, it would also give the false impression that surgery is truly an option. To act this way would allow the surgeon the ability to avoid “playing God” since the family is “making the decision”. However, I believe that taking that decision away from families when there is not really a reasonable choice for surgery is a better way to eliminate their potential guilt. Not only is it ethically acceptable to decline to offer an operation to an extremely high-risk patient, I would argue that such behavior is actually the ethical responsibility of the surgeon. We should take on the burden of saying “no” when surgery should NOT be performed. Forcing such a decision on families in the name of respecting autonomy is to shirk our responsibility and something that we must avoid doing whenever possible.
Dr. Angelos is an ACS Fellow; the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics; chief, endocrine surgery; and associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago.
When I was a resident, one of the surgery faculty who often performed big, high-risk operations liked to say, “If the patient can tolerate a haircut, he can tolerate an operation.” By this, he meant that there were not patients who were too sick for surgery if the operation was indicated. However, over the last 2 decades, I have seen a handful of patients for whom the risks of the operation far outweigh the potential benefits and for whom I have said I am not offering surgery as an option.
Recently, I had a chance to discuss troubling ethics cases with group of thoughtful surgical residents. They raised concerns over the common scenario of being consulted in the middle of the night on the critically ill patient in the intensive care unit for whom the risks of surgery are extremely high. These residents asked the question of whether it is ever acceptable for surgeons to simply refuse to take such patients to the operating room if the alternative to surgery is virtually certain death. The overriding concern among the residents was whether saying “no” to a request for operative intervention in a critically ill patient can ever be justified since the surgeon is essentially “playing God” by not offering the possibility of intervention.
There is no question that there can be very sick patients who have a poor prognosis and the decision is appropriately made to recommend surgery even though the risks are very high. I also believe that there are patients for whom the risks of surgery are so high, and the prospects for a good outcome are so low, that surgery should not be recommended. However, it is important to distinguish two different scenarios. In one scenario, the surgical consultant decides that surgery is an option, but then tries to convince the surrogate decision makers (usually the patient’s family) to decline surgery because of the very high risks. In the second scenario, the surgeon decides that the risks to the patient are so high that it would be wrong to even take the patient to the operating room.
In both scenarios, the patient does not get an operation and in the vast majority of such cases, the patient will die in a short period of time. The question remains whether it is better to give families a choice or not. I believe that posing the question in this manner is misleading and presents a false dichotomy.
Although the distinctions can be subtle, it is critical for the surgeon to decide whether each patient has a high enough chance for survival that the operation is medically justifiable. If the answer is “yes,” then the next question will be one for the surrogate decision makers to decide whether to consent to the surgery or not. Based on the importance of respecting the autonomous choices of patients or their surrogates, it is important that surgeons respect the choice not to have an operation even if one is being recommended. If the answer to the question of whether the operation is medically justifiable is “no,” to offer surgery to family and then try to convince them to decline it by overstating the risks is misleading. Although such a strategy would give the family a sense of control over the situation, it would also give the false impression that surgery is truly an option. To act this way would allow the surgeon the ability to avoid “playing God” since the family is “making the decision”. However, I believe that taking that decision away from families when there is not really a reasonable choice for surgery is a better way to eliminate their potential guilt. Not only is it ethically acceptable to decline to offer an operation to an extremely high-risk patient, I would argue that such behavior is actually the ethical responsibility of the surgeon. We should take on the burden of saying “no” when surgery should NOT be performed. Forcing such a decision on families in the name of respecting autonomy is to shirk our responsibility and something that we must avoid doing whenever possible.
Dr. Angelos is an ACS Fellow; the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics; chief, endocrine surgery; and associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago.
When I was a resident, one of the surgery faculty who often performed big, high-risk operations liked to say, “If the patient can tolerate a haircut, he can tolerate an operation.” By this, he meant that there were not patients who were too sick for surgery if the operation was indicated. However, over the last 2 decades, I have seen a handful of patients for whom the risks of the operation far outweigh the potential benefits and for whom I have said I am not offering surgery as an option.
Recently, I had a chance to discuss troubling ethics cases with group of thoughtful surgical residents. They raised concerns over the common scenario of being consulted in the middle of the night on the critically ill patient in the intensive care unit for whom the risks of surgery are extremely high. These residents asked the question of whether it is ever acceptable for surgeons to simply refuse to take such patients to the operating room if the alternative to surgery is virtually certain death. The overriding concern among the residents was whether saying “no” to a request for operative intervention in a critically ill patient can ever be justified since the surgeon is essentially “playing God” by not offering the possibility of intervention.
There is no question that there can be very sick patients who have a poor prognosis and the decision is appropriately made to recommend surgery even though the risks are very high. I also believe that there are patients for whom the risks of surgery are so high, and the prospects for a good outcome are so low, that surgery should not be recommended. However, it is important to distinguish two different scenarios. In one scenario, the surgical consultant decides that surgery is an option, but then tries to convince the surrogate decision makers (usually the patient’s family) to decline surgery because of the very high risks. In the second scenario, the surgeon decides that the risks to the patient are so high that it would be wrong to even take the patient to the operating room.
In both scenarios, the patient does not get an operation and in the vast majority of such cases, the patient will die in a short period of time. The question remains whether it is better to give families a choice or not. I believe that posing the question in this manner is misleading and presents a false dichotomy.
Although the distinctions can be subtle, it is critical for the surgeon to decide whether each patient has a high enough chance for survival that the operation is medically justifiable. If the answer is “yes,” then the next question will be one for the surrogate decision makers to decide whether to consent to the surgery or not. Based on the importance of respecting the autonomous choices of patients or their surrogates, it is important that surgeons respect the choice not to have an operation even if one is being recommended. If the answer to the question of whether the operation is medically justifiable is “no,” to offer surgery to family and then try to convince them to decline it by overstating the risks is misleading. Although such a strategy would give the family a sense of control over the situation, it would also give the false impression that surgery is truly an option. To act this way would allow the surgeon the ability to avoid “playing God” since the family is “making the decision”. However, I believe that taking that decision away from families when there is not really a reasonable choice for surgery is a better way to eliminate their potential guilt. Not only is it ethically acceptable to decline to offer an operation to an extremely high-risk patient, I would argue that such behavior is actually the ethical responsibility of the surgeon. We should take on the burden of saying “no” when surgery should NOT be performed. Forcing such a decision on families in the name of respecting autonomy is to shirk our responsibility and something that we must avoid doing whenever possible.
Dr. Angelos is an ACS Fellow; the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics; chief, endocrine surgery; and associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago.
ACS Statement On Surgical Quality And Readmissions Studies In The Journal Of The American Medical Association
CHICAGO (Feb. 3, 2015) – Studies in the Feb.3 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) discuss one of the American College of Surgeons’ quality improvement programs, the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). NSQIP is a clinical, risk-adjusted surgical outcomes registry that originated in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and was demonstrated to improve surgical care for veterans. NSQIP transitioned to the private sector, and similarly, it has been repeatedly reported to achieve improved surgical care and outcomes.
In the Feb.3 issue of JAMA, one study shows important new and novel clinical details about hospital readmission using NSQIP data. Two additional articles question whether the reporting of data is associated with improvement.
The study by Merkow et al. identifies reasons for surgical readmissions. The study shows the overall rate of unplanned hospital readmissions for operations is 5.7 percent, largely due to surgical complications. The most common reason for readmission was surgical site infection. As Dr. Lucian Leape concludes in his accompanying editorial, the findings of this study using the clinical data from NSQIP provide an “unprecedented opportunity” to “make substantial reductions in surgical complications.” This study demonstrates the importance of using rigorously collected, clinically appropriate data in health care.
The subsequent two studies (by Osborne et al. and Etzioni et al.) question whether knowing surgical results is associated with improvement – and they both conclude that there is no association between having data reported back and improvement.
It needs to be recognized, however, these studies have several significant flaws, some of which were highlighted in the associated editorial by Dr. Donald Berwick. Here are some of the problems:
1. They did not use the right data. Both studies relied on the use of claims data, yet recent Annals of Surgery studies (Lawson 2012 and 2015) found claims data are inaccurate and inappropriate for measuring surgical complications, invalidating the use of claims data for studying surgical quality and complications. That is one of the reasons why the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is moving away from using claims data for quality measurement. A common data saying is “garbage in, garbage out.”
2. Both studies failed to consider how quality improvement is performed in the real world. First, the studies evaluated combined overall rates of complications. Real-world experience shows hospitals tend to focus on specific complications one by one, such as surgical-site infections, or a specific specialty, such as urology or orthopedics. Second, when performance is averaged across many outcomes, methodological problems arise. As Berwick correctly noted in his editorial, “the methodological limitations of these studies … involve the loss of key, local, contextually specific information that large-scale studies of average effects ignore by design.” Simply put, these studies obscure the improvement that is happening in the real world.
Also in his accompanying editorial, Dr. Berwick emphasizes additional study problems by underscoring the fact that “it is implausible that knowing results is not useful.” Since NSQIP was created more than 20 years ago, hospitals have continued to use their data to do better by their patients. In NSQIP, literally hundreds of hospitals are sharing their local, context-specific quality achievements and demonstrating the value of using data to get better.
CHICAGO (Feb. 3, 2015) – Studies in the Feb.3 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) discuss one of the American College of Surgeons’ quality improvement programs, the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). NSQIP is a clinical, risk-adjusted surgical outcomes registry that originated in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and was demonstrated to improve surgical care for veterans. NSQIP transitioned to the private sector, and similarly, it has been repeatedly reported to achieve improved surgical care and outcomes.
In the Feb.3 issue of JAMA, one study shows important new and novel clinical details about hospital readmission using NSQIP data. Two additional articles question whether the reporting of data is associated with improvement.
The study by Merkow et al. identifies reasons for surgical readmissions. The study shows the overall rate of unplanned hospital readmissions for operations is 5.7 percent, largely due to surgical complications. The most common reason for readmission was surgical site infection. As Dr. Lucian Leape concludes in his accompanying editorial, the findings of this study using the clinical data from NSQIP provide an “unprecedented opportunity” to “make substantial reductions in surgical complications.” This study demonstrates the importance of using rigorously collected, clinically appropriate data in health care.
The subsequent two studies (by Osborne et al. and Etzioni et al.) question whether knowing surgical results is associated with improvement – and they both conclude that there is no association between having data reported back and improvement.
It needs to be recognized, however, these studies have several significant flaws, some of which were highlighted in the associated editorial by Dr. Donald Berwick. Here are some of the problems:
1. They did not use the right data. Both studies relied on the use of claims data, yet recent Annals of Surgery studies (Lawson 2012 and 2015) found claims data are inaccurate and inappropriate for measuring surgical complications, invalidating the use of claims data for studying surgical quality and complications. That is one of the reasons why the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is moving away from using claims data for quality measurement. A common data saying is “garbage in, garbage out.”
2. Both studies failed to consider how quality improvement is performed in the real world. First, the studies evaluated combined overall rates of complications. Real-world experience shows hospitals tend to focus on specific complications one by one, such as surgical-site infections, or a specific specialty, such as urology or orthopedics. Second, when performance is averaged across many outcomes, methodological problems arise. As Berwick correctly noted in his editorial, “the methodological limitations of these studies … involve the loss of key, local, contextually specific information that large-scale studies of average effects ignore by design.” Simply put, these studies obscure the improvement that is happening in the real world.
Also in his accompanying editorial, Dr. Berwick emphasizes additional study problems by underscoring the fact that “it is implausible that knowing results is not useful.” Since NSQIP was created more than 20 years ago, hospitals have continued to use their data to do better by their patients. In NSQIP, literally hundreds of hospitals are sharing their local, context-specific quality achievements and demonstrating the value of using data to get better.
CHICAGO (Feb. 3, 2015) – Studies in the Feb.3 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) discuss one of the American College of Surgeons’ quality improvement programs, the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). NSQIP is a clinical, risk-adjusted surgical outcomes registry that originated in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and was demonstrated to improve surgical care for veterans. NSQIP transitioned to the private sector, and similarly, it has been repeatedly reported to achieve improved surgical care and outcomes.
In the Feb.3 issue of JAMA, one study shows important new and novel clinical details about hospital readmission using NSQIP data. Two additional articles question whether the reporting of data is associated with improvement.
The study by Merkow et al. identifies reasons for surgical readmissions. The study shows the overall rate of unplanned hospital readmissions for operations is 5.7 percent, largely due to surgical complications. The most common reason for readmission was surgical site infection. As Dr. Lucian Leape concludes in his accompanying editorial, the findings of this study using the clinical data from NSQIP provide an “unprecedented opportunity” to “make substantial reductions in surgical complications.” This study demonstrates the importance of using rigorously collected, clinically appropriate data in health care.
The subsequent two studies (by Osborne et al. and Etzioni et al.) question whether knowing surgical results is associated with improvement – and they both conclude that there is no association between having data reported back and improvement.
It needs to be recognized, however, these studies have several significant flaws, some of which were highlighted in the associated editorial by Dr. Donald Berwick. Here are some of the problems:
1. They did not use the right data. Both studies relied on the use of claims data, yet recent Annals of Surgery studies (Lawson 2012 and 2015) found claims data are inaccurate and inappropriate for measuring surgical complications, invalidating the use of claims data for studying surgical quality and complications. That is one of the reasons why the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is moving away from using claims data for quality measurement. A common data saying is “garbage in, garbage out.”
2. Both studies failed to consider how quality improvement is performed in the real world. First, the studies evaluated combined overall rates of complications. Real-world experience shows hospitals tend to focus on specific complications one by one, such as surgical-site infections, or a specific specialty, such as urology or orthopedics. Second, when performance is averaged across many outcomes, methodological problems arise. As Berwick correctly noted in his editorial, “the methodological limitations of these studies … involve the loss of key, local, contextually specific information that large-scale studies of average effects ignore by design.” Simply put, these studies obscure the improvement that is happening in the real world.
Also in his accompanying editorial, Dr. Berwick emphasizes additional study problems by underscoring the fact that “it is implausible that knowing results is not useful.” Since NSQIP was created more than 20 years ago, hospitals have continued to use their data to do better by their patients. In NSQIP, literally hundreds of hospitals are sharing their local, context-specific quality achievements and demonstrating the value of using data to get better.
2014 Clinical Congress webcast sessions now available
Webcasts of select Clinical Congress 2014 sessions are available for viewing on demand through the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Division of Education. The webcasts offer continuing medical education (CME) and self-assessment credit. Purchasers of the sessions may choose from three packages:
•Complete Webcast Package, which includes 113 sessions and audio recordings, available at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=659
•Webcast Package, which provides access to 113 sessions, available at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=660
•Webcast Pick 25, which allows the purchaser to select 25 out of 113 webcast sessions from 2014, available at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=661
The ACS also offers Clinical Congress Audio Recordings only (no CME). Visit the ACS website for details at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=658.For more information, contact [email protected].
Webcasts of select Clinical Congress 2014 sessions are available for viewing on demand through the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Division of Education. The webcasts offer continuing medical education (CME) and self-assessment credit. Purchasers of the sessions may choose from three packages:
•Complete Webcast Package, which includes 113 sessions and audio recordings, available at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=659
•Webcast Package, which provides access to 113 sessions, available at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=660
•Webcast Pick 25, which allows the purchaser to select 25 out of 113 webcast sessions from 2014, available at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=661
The ACS also offers Clinical Congress Audio Recordings only (no CME). Visit the ACS website for details at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=658.For more information, contact [email protected].
Webcasts of select Clinical Congress 2014 sessions are available for viewing on demand through the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Division of Education. The webcasts offer continuing medical education (CME) and self-assessment credit. Purchasers of the sessions may choose from three packages:
•Complete Webcast Package, which includes 113 sessions and audio recordings, available at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=659
•Webcast Package, which provides access to 113 sessions, available at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=660
•Webcast Pick 25, which allows the purchaser to select 25 out of 113 webcast sessions from 2014, available at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=661
The ACS also offers Clinical Congress Audio Recordings only (no CME). Visit the ACS website for details at https://web4.facs.org/eBusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=658.For more information, contact [email protected].
Peter N. Bretan, Jr., MD, FACS, receives AMA Benjamin Rush Award
Peter N. Bretan, Jr., MD, FACS, a urological and transplant surgeon, Novato, CA, received the Benjamin Rush Award for Citizenship and Community Service from the American Medical Association (AMA) in November 2014. The award recognizes physicians who have performed beyond expectations and made extraordinary public service contributions. Dr. Bretan received the award during the opening session of the 2014 AMA interim meeting in Dallas, TX.
The award honors Dr. Bretan for his innovative work as a renal transplant surgeon and urologist, as well as his participation in global disaster relief efforts. He is the founder of Life Plant International, a charitable organization that promotes disaster preparedness, organ donation, and early disease screening worldwide. Following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, LA, in 2005, Dr. Bretan provided free medical care as part of “Team Orleans.”
Since 2002, he also has made nearly 20 medical mission trips to the Philippines to perform and teach local physicians about kidney transplant and laparoscopic kidney removal operations. More recently, he served as part of a medical mission to the Philippines to provide care to victims of Typhoon Halyan. View the AMA press release announcing the award to Dr. Bretan at www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2014/2014-11-10-peter-bretan-receives-benjamin-rush-award.page.
Peter N. Bretan, Jr., MD, FACS, a urological and transplant surgeon, Novato, CA, received the Benjamin Rush Award for Citizenship and Community Service from the American Medical Association (AMA) in November 2014. The award recognizes physicians who have performed beyond expectations and made extraordinary public service contributions. Dr. Bretan received the award during the opening session of the 2014 AMA interim meeting in Dallas, TX.
The award honors Dr. Bretan for his innovative work as a renal transplant surgeon and urologist, as well as his participation in global disaster relief efforts. He is the founder of Life Plant International, a charitable organization that promotes disaster preparedness, organ donation, and early disease screening worldwide. Following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, LA, in 2005, Dr. Bretan provided free medical care as part of “Team Orleans.”
Since 2002, he also has made nearly 20 medical mission trips to the Philippines to perform and teach local physicians about kidney transplant and laparoscopic kidney removal operations. More recently, he served as part of a medical mission to the Philippines to provide care to victims of Typhoon Halyan. View the AMA press release announcing the award to Dr. Bretan at www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2014/2014-11-10-peter-bretan-receives-benjamin-rush-award.page.
Peter N. Bretan, Jr., MD, FACS, a urological and transplant surgeon, Novato, CA, received the Benjamin Rush Award for Citizenship and Community Service from the American Medical Association (AMA) in November 2014. The award recognizes physicians who have performed beyond expectations and made extraordinary public service contributions. Dr. Bretan received the award during the opening session of the 2014 AMA interim meeting in Dallas, TX.
The award honors Dr. Bretan for his innovative work as a renal transplant surgeon and urologist, as well as his participation in global disaster relief efforts. He is the founder of Life Plant International, a charitable organization that promotes disaster preparedness, organ donation, and early disease screening worldwide. Following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, LA, in 2005, Dr. Bretan provided free medical care as part of “Team Orleans.”
Since 2002, he also has made nearly 20 medical mission trips to the Philippines to perform and teach local physicians about kidney transplant and laparoscopic kidney removal operations. More recently, he served as part of a medical mission to the Philippines to provide care to victims of Typhoon Halyan. View the AMA press release announcing the award to Dr. Bretan at www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2014/2014-11-10-peter-bretan-receives-benjamin-rush-award.page.
ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence Program: Celebrating 10 years of training surgeons
The American College of Surgeons (ACS) is now accepting applications for the 2016–2018 Clinical Scholar in Residence positions, and celebrating the 10th year of this well-recognized program. The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence Program is a two-year on-site fellowship in surgical outcomes research, health services research, and health care policy. It was initiated in 2005 to advance ACS quality improvement initiatives and to offer opportunities for residents to work on these programs and do related research. More specifically, ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence perform research relevant to ongoing projects in the ACS Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care.
About the program
The primary objective of the fellowship is to address issues in health care quality, patient safety, and health policy, with the goal of helping the ACS Clinical Scholar in Residence prepare for a research career in academic surgery. The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence have worked on projects and research within the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the National Cancer Data Base, the National Trauma Data Bank®, the Surgeon Specific Registry, the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program, measure and guideline development initiative, and accreditation programs. Scholars are assigned to the appropriate group within the ACS based on their interests and the College’s needs.
In addition, participants earn a master’s degree in health services and outcomes research or health care quality and patient safety from Northwestern University during their two years at the ACS headquarters in Chicago, IL. The goal of this aspect of the program is to educate clinicians to become effective health services and outcomes researchers with a strong fundamental knowledge of research methods. The health services and outcomes research curriculum focuses on these issues within institutional and health care delivery systems, as well as in external environments that shape health policy centered on quality and safety issues. The program takes approximately two years to complete. All coursework is done at Northwestern University’s Chicago campus, one block from the ACS headquarters. The ACS also offers a variety of educational programs that may benefit the Clinical Scholars, including Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials courses.
The ACS assigns internal mentors to meet regularly with each ACS Clinical Scholar in Residence. Scholars also have opportunities to interact with various surgeons who are affiliated with the ACS and the Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care. Mentorship is one of the most important aspects of this fellowship. Guidance and interaction with multiple individuals from diverse backgrounds will provide the best opportunity for success. In addition, a core of ACS and Northwestern staff statisticians and project analysts serve as invaluable resources to the ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence.
Past successes
Surgical residents from throughout the U.S. have participated in the ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence program. These individuals report excellent, productive experiences that have been useful in launching their careers in the field of academic surgery. Eleven scholars have already completed the program, and six scholars are currently participating, with three more beginning in July 2015. The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence have demonstrated great dedication to outcomes research and the improvement of the quality of surgical care.
The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence have presented their findings at numerous major national meetings and published in high-impact, peer-reviewed publications, including several recent publications, in the Journal of the American Medical Association and other top surgical journals. In addition, the scholars contribute a great deal to the ACS quality improvement programs.
Apply now
The 2016–2018 scholars will begin their work on July 1, 2016. Applications for these positions are due April 3, 2015. Currently, applicants are required to have funding from their institution or another grant mechanism. For more information about the program and the application requirements, go to www.facs.org/ropc/clinicalscholars.html, or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dr. Bilimoria is a Faculty Scholar at the ACS; director, Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, and vice-chair for quality, department of surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. Dr. Ko is the Director of the ACS Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care and ACS NSQIP. Dr. Winchester is Medical Director of ACS Cancer Programs.
The American College of Surgeons (ACS) is now accepting applications for the 2016–2018 Clinical Scholar in Residence positions, and celebrating the 10th year of this well-recognized program. The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence Program is a two-year on-site fellowship in surgical outcomes research, health services research, and health care policy. It was initiated in 2005 to advance ACS quality improvement initiatives and to offer opportunities for residents to work on these programs and do related research. More specifically, ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence perform research relevant to ongoing projects in the ACS Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care.
About the program
The primary objective of the fellowship is to address issues in health care quality, patient safety, and health policy, with the goal of helping the ACS Clinical Scholar in Residence prepare for a research career in academic surgery. The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence have worked on projects and research within the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the National Cancer Data Base, the National Trauma Data Bank®, the Surgeon Specific Registry, the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program, measure and guideline development initiative, and accreditation programs. Scholars are assigned to the appropriate group within the ACS based on their interests and the College’s needs.
In addition, participants earn a master’s degree in health services and outcomes research or health care quality and patient safety from Northwestern University during their two years at the ACS headquarters in Chicago, IL. The goal of this aspect of the program is to educate clinicians to become effective health services and outcomes researchers with a strong fundamental knowledge of research methods. The health services and outcomes research curriculum focuses on these issues within institutional and health care delivery systems, as well as in external environments that shape health policy centered on quality and safety issues. The program takes approximately two years to complete. All coursework is done at Northwestern University’s Chicago campus, one block from the ACS headquarters. The ACS also offers a variety of educational programs that may benefit the Clinical Scholars, including Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials courses.
The ACS assigns internal mentors to meet regularly with each ACS Clinical Scholar in Residence. Scholars also have opportunities to interact with various surgeons who are affiliated with the ACS and the Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care. Mentorship is one of the most important aspects of this fellowship. Guidance and interaction with multiple individuals from diverse backgrounds will provide the best opportunity for success. In addition, a core of ACS and Northwestern staff statisticians and project analysts serve as invaluable resources to the ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence.
Past successes
Surgical residents from throughout the U.S. have participated in the ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence program. These individuals report excellent, productive experiences that have been useful in launching their careers in the field of academic surgery. Eleven scholars have already completed the program, and six scholars are currently participating, with three more beginning in July 2015. The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence have demonstrated great dedication to outcomes research and the improvement of the quality of surgical care.
The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence have presented their findings at numerous major national meetings and published in high-impact, peer-reviewed publications, including several recent publications, in the Journal of the American Medical Association and other top surgical journals. In addition, the scholars contribute a great deal to the ACS quality improvement programs.
Apply now
The 2016–2018 scholars will begin their work on July 1, 2016. Applications for these positions are due April 3, 2015. Currently, applicants are required to have funding from their institution or another grant mechanism. For more information about the program and the application requirements, go to www.facs.org/ropc/clinicalscholars.html, or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dr. Bilimoria is a Faculty Scholar at the ACS; director, Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, and vice-chair for quality, department of surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. Dr. Ko is the Director of the ACS Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care and ACS NSQIP. Dr. Winchester is Medical Director of ACS Cancer Programs.
The American College of Surgeons (ACS) is now accepting applications for the 2016–2018 Clinical Scholar in Residence positions, and celebrating the 10th year of this well-recognized program. The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence Program is a two-year on-site fellowship in surgical outcomes research, health services research, and health care policy. It was initiated in 2005 to advance ACS quality improvement initiatives and to offer opportunities for residents to work on these programs and do related research. More specifically, ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence perform research relevant to ongoing projects in the ACS Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care.
About the program
The primary objective of the fellowship is to address issues in health care quality, patient safety, and health policy, with the goal of helping the ACS Clinical Scholar in Residence prepare for a research career in academic surgery. The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence have worked on projects and research within the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the National Cancer Data Base, the National Trauma Data Bank®, the Surgeon Specific Registry, the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program, measure and guideline development initiative, and accreditation programs. Scholars are assigned to the appropriate group within the ACS based on their interests and the College’s needs.
In addition, participants earn a master’s degree in health services and outcomes research or health care quality and patient safety from Northwestern University during their two years at the ACS headquarters in Chicago, IL. The goal of this aspect of the program is to educate clinicians to become effective health services and outcomes researchers with a strong fundamental knowledge of research methods. The health services and outcomes research curriculum focuses on these issues within institutional and health care delivery systems, as well as in external environments that shape health policy centered on quality and safety issues. The program takes approximately two years to complete. All coursework is done at Northwestern University’s Chicago campus, one block from the ACS headquarters. The ACS also offers a variety of educational programs that may benefit the Clinical Scholars, including Outcomes Research and Clinical Trials courses.
The ACS assigns internal mentors to meet regularly with each ACS Clinical Scholar in Residence. Scholars also have opportunities to interact with various surgeons who are affiliated with the ACS and the Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care. Mentorship is one of the most important aspects of this fellowship. Guidance and interaction with multiple individuals from diverse backgrounds will provide the best opportunity for success. In addition, a core of ACS and Northwestern staff statisticians and project analysts serve as invaluable resources to the ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence.
Past successes
Surgical residents from throughout the U.S. have participated in the ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence program. These individuals report excellent, productive experiences that have been useful in launching their careers in the field of academic surgery. Eleven scholars have already completed the program, and six scholars are currently participating, with three more beginning in July 2015. The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence have demonstrated great dedication to outcomes research and the improvement of the quality of surgical care.
The ACS Clinical Scholars in Residence have presented their findings at numerous major national meetings and published in high-impact, peer-reviewed publications, including several recent publications, in the Journal of the American Medical Association and other top surgical journals. In addition, the scholars contribute a great deal to the ACS quality improvement programs.
Apply now
The 2016–2018 scholars will begin their work on July 1, 2016. Applications for these positions are due April 3, 2015. Currently, applicants are required to have funding from their institution or another grant mechanism. For more information about the program and the application requirements, go to www.facs.org/ropc/clinicalscholars.html, or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dr. Bilimoria is a Faculty Scholar at the ACS; director, Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, and vice-chair for quality, department of surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. Dr. Ko is the Director of the ACS Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care and ACS NSQIP. Dr. Winchester is Medical Director of ACS Cancer Programs.
YFA announces 2014–2015 Chair, Governing Council
The Young Fellows Association (YFA) of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) recently announced its new Chair for 2014–2015, as well as newly appointed members selected to serve on the YFA Governing Council. Michael Sutherland, MD, FACS, a general surgeon and assistant professor, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine, Little Rock, will serve a one-year term as YFA Chair. Jacob Moalem, MD, FACS, a general surgeon and assistant professor, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, will serve a one-year term as Vice-Chair.
New members of the YFA Governing Council are Ashley Vergis, MD, FACS, a minimally invasive and bariatric surgeon and assistant professor, University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine, Winnipeg; Gerald R. Fortuna, Jr., MD, FACS, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, Senior Flight Surgeon, University of Texas Houston Memorial Hospital, department of cardiothoracic and vascular surgery; Paula Ferrada, MD, FACS, a trauma surgeon and assistant professor, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond; and Edie Chan, MD, FACS, a transplant surgeon and assistant professor, Rush Medical College of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
For more information, go to www.facs.org/member-services/yfa/leadership.
The Young Fellows Association (YFA) of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) recently announced its new Chair for 2014–2015, as well as newly appointed members selected to serve on the YFA Governing Council. Michael Sutherland, MD, FACS, a general surgeon and assistant professor, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine, Little Rock, will serve a one-year term as YFA Chair. Jacob Moalem, MD, FACS, a general surgeon and assistant professor, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, will serve a one-year term as Vice-Chair.
New members of the YFA Governing Council are Ashley Vergis, MD, FACS, a minimally invasive and bariatric surgeon and assistant professor, University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine, Winnipeg; Gerald R. Fortuna, Jr., MD, FACS, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, Senior Flight Surgeon, University of Texas Houston Memorial Hospital, department of cardiothoracic and vascular surgery; Paula Ferrada, MD, FACS, a trauma surgeon and assistant professor, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond; and Edie Chan, MD, FACS, a transplant surgeon and assistant professor, Rush Medical College of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
For more information, go to www.facs.org/member-services/yfa/leadership.
The Young Fellows Association (YFA) of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) recently announced its new Chair for 2014–2015, as well as newly appointed members selected to serve on the YFA Governing Council. Michael Sutherland, MD, FACS, a general surgeon and assistant professor, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine, Little Rock, will serve a one-year term as YFA Chair. Jacob Moalem, MD, FACS, a general surgeon and assistant professor, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, will serve a one-year term as Vice-Chair.
New members of the YFA Governing Council are Ashley Vergis, MD, FACS, a minimally invasive and bariatric surgeon and assistant professor, University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine, Winnipeg; Gerald R. Fortuna, Jr., MD, FACS, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, Senior Flight Surgeon, University of Texas Houston Memorial Hospital, department of cardiothoracic and vascular surgery; Paula Ferrada, MD, FACS, a trauma surgeon and assistant professor, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond; and Edie Chan, MD, FACS, a transplant surgeon and assistant professor, Rush Medical College of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
For more information, go to www.facs.org/member-services/yfa/leadership.
ACS honors Gary L. Timmerman, MD, FACS, with Appreciation Award for service to the ACS Board of Governors
Gary L. Timmerman, MD, FACS, a general surgeon from Sioux Falls, SD, was honored at the American College of Surgeons (ACS) 2014 Clinical Congress with an Appreciation Award for his years of service to the ACS Board of Governors. Dr. Timmerman concluded his tenure as Chair of the Board of Governors at the annual meeting.
During the Board of Governors Dinner October 29, Dr. Timmerman received a plaque commemorating the many roles he has filled at the College. Since 1997, he has served in more than 20 volunteer positions with the ACS, seven of which were on the Board of Governors.
“Dr. Timmerman played an instrumental role during his tenure as Chair of the Board of Governors during this past year. His sensitivity to individuals and issues, wonderful sense of humor, and tireless devotion to the American College of Surgeons will be remembered for many years to come,” said Patricia L. Turner, MD, FACS, Director, ACS Division of Member Services.
Dr. Timmerman became a Member of the Board of Governors in 2007. In 2009, he became a Member of the Board’s Nominating Committee (2009–2010). He has subsequently served as a Member of the Committee to Study the Fiscal Affairs of the College (2013–2014), Vice-Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee to Restructure Board of Governors Committees (2012–2013), Member of the Executive Committee (2011–2012), Vice-Chair of the Board of Governors (2011–2013), and, lastly, Chair of the Board of Governors (2013–2014).
In addition, he is a Past-President of the ACS South Dakota Chapter (1997–1998) and has been a member and chair of numerous other College committees, including the Committee on Young Surgeons and the Nominating Committee of the Fellows.
Dr. Timmerman is an attending surgeon at Sanford Surgical Associates, Sioux Falls, and associate professor and chair, department of surgery, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota.
Gary L. Timmerman, MD, FACS, a general surgeon from Sioux Falls, SD, was honored at the American College of Surgeons (ACS) 2014 Clinical Congress with an Appreciation Award for his years of service to the ACS Board of Governors. Dr. Timmerman concluded his tenure as Chair of the Board of Governors at the annual meeting.
During the Board of Governors Dinner October 29, Dr. Timmerman received a plaque commemorating the many roles he has filled at the College. Since 1997, he has served in more than 20 volunteer positions with the ACS, seven of which were on the Board of Governors.
“Dr. Timmerman played an instrumental role during his tenure as Chair of the Board of Governors during this past year. His sensitivity to individuals and issues, wonderful sense of humor, and tireless devotion to the American College of Surgeons will be remembered for many years to come,” said Patricia L. Turner, MD, FACS, Director, ACS Division of Member Services.
Dr. Timmerman became a Member of the Board of Governors in 2007. In 2009, he became a Member of the Board’s Nominating Committee (2009–2010). He has subsequently served as a Member of the Committee to Study the Fiscal Affairs of the College (2013–2014), Vice-Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee to Restructure Board of Governors Committees (2012–2013), Member of the Executive Committee (2011–2012), Vice-Chair of the Board of Governors (2011–2013), and, lastly, Chair of the Board of Governors (2013–2014).
In addition, he is a Past-President of the ACS South Dakota Chapter (1997–1998) and has been a member and chair of numerous other College committees, including the Committee on Young Surgeons and the Nominating Committee of the Fellows.
Dr. Timmerman is an attending surgeon at Sanford Surgical Associates, Sioux Falls, and associate professor and chair, department of surgery, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota.
Gary L. Timmerman, MD, FACS, a general surgeon from Sioux Falls, SD, was honored at the American College of Surgeons (ACS) 2014 Clinical Congress with an Appreciation Award for his years of service to the ACS Board of Governors. Dr. Timmerman concluded his tenure as Chair of the Board of Governors at the annual meeting.
During the Board of Governors Dinner October 29, Dr. Timmerman received a plaque commemorating the many roles he has filled at the College. Since 1997, he has served in more than 20 volunteer positions with the ACS, seven of which were on the Board of Governors.
“Dr. Timmerman played an instrumental role during his tenure as Chair of the Board of Governors during this past year. His sensitivity to individuals and issues, wonderful sense of humor, and tireless devotion to the American College of Surgeons will be remembered for many years to come,” said Patricia L. Turner, MD, FACS, Director, ACS Division of Member Services.
Dr. Timmerman became a Member of the Board of Governors in 2007. In 2009, he became a Member of the Board’s Nominating Committee (2009–2010). He has subsequently served as a Member of the Committee to Study the Fiscal Affairs of the College (2013–2014), Vice-Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee to Restructure Board of Governors Committees (2012–2013), Member of the Executive Committee (2011–2012), Vice-Chair of the Board of Governors (2011–2013), and, lastly, Chair of the Board of Governors (2013–2014).
In addition, he is a Past-President of the ACS South Dakota Chapter (1997–1998) and has been a member and chair of numerous other College committees, including the Committee on Young Surgeons and the Nominating Committee of the Fellows.
Dr. Timmerman is an attending surgeon at Sanford Surgical Associates, Sioux Falls, and associate professor and chair, department of surgery, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota.
Call for nominations for the American College of Surgeons Board of Regents
The 2015 Nominating Committee of the Board of Governors (NCBG) will select nominees for pending vacancies on the Board of Regents that will be filled at the 2015 Clinical Congress. The NCBG uses the following guidelines when reviewing the names of candidates for nomination to the Board of Regents:
•Nominees must be loyal members of the College who have demonstrated outstanding integrity and medical statesmanship, along with an unquestioned devotion to the highest principles of surgical practice.
•Nominees must have demonstrated leadership qualities that might be reflected by service and active participation on ACS committees or in other components of the College.
The NCBG recognizes the importance of Board of Regent members representing all health care professionals who practice surgery.
The NCBG also considers geography, surgical specialty balance, and academic or community practice.
The College encourages consideration of women and other underrepresented minorities. Individuals who are no longer in active surgical practice should not be nominated for election or reelection to the Board of Regents.All surgical specialties will be considered.
All nominations must include a letter of recommendation, a personal statement from the candidates detailing their ACS service, and the name of one reference. In addition, entities such as surgical specialty societies, ACS advisory councils, and ACS chapters that are submitting nominations must provide a description of their selection process and the total list of applicants reviewed. Any attempt to contact members of the NCBG by a candidate or on behalf of a candidate will be viewed in a negative manner and may result in disqualification of the candidate. Applications submitted without the requested information will not be considered.
The deadline for submitting nominations is February 27. Submit nominations to [email protected].
For more information, contact Betty Sanders, Staff Liaison for the NCBG, at 312-202-5360 or [email protected].
For information only, the current members of the Board of Regents who will be considered for re-election (all MD, FACS) are John L.D. Atkinson; Henri R. Ford; Enrique Hernandez; L. Scott Levin; Leigh A. Neumayer; Marshall Z. Schwartz; Beth H. Sutton; and Steven D. Wexner.
The 2015 Nominating Committee of the Board of Governors (NCBG) will select nominees for pending vacancies on the Board of Regents that will be filled at the 2015 Clinical Congress. The NCBG uses the following guidelines when reviewing the names of candidates for nomination to the Board of Regents:
•Nominees must be loyal members of the College who have demonstrated outstanding integrity and medical statesmanship, along with an unquestioned devotion to the highest principles of surgical practice.
•Nominees must have demonstrated leadership qualities that might be reflected by service and active participation on ACS committees or in other components of the College.
The NCBG recognizes the importance of Board of Regent members representing all health care professionals who practice surgery.
The NCBG also considers geography, surgical specialty balance, and academic or community practice.
The College encourages consideration of women and other underrepresented minorities. Individuals who are no longer in active surgical practice should not be nominated for election or reelection to the Board of Regents.All surgical specialties will be considered.
All nominations must include a letter of recommendation, a personal statement from the candidates detailing their ACS service, and the name of one reference. In addition, entities such as surgical specialty societies, ACS advisory councils, and ACS chapters that are submitting nominations must provide a description of their selection process and the total list of applicants reviewed. Any attempt to contact members of the NCBG by a candidate or on behalf of a candidate will be viewed in a negative manner and may result in disqualification of the candidate. Applications submitted without the requested information will not be considered.
The deadline for submitting nominations is February 27. Submit nominations to [email protected].
For more information, contact Betty Sanders, Staff Liaison for the NCBG, at 312-202-5360 or [email protected].
For information only, the current members of the Board of Regents who will be considered for re-election (all MD, FACS) are John L.D. Atkinson; Henri R. Ford; Enrique Hernandez; L. Scott Levin; Leigh A. Neumayer; Marshall Z. Schwartz; Beth H. Sutton; and Steven D. Wexner.
The 2015 Nominating Committee of the Board of Governors (NCBG) will select nominees for pending vacancies on the Board of Regents that will be filled at the 2015 Clinical Congress. The NCBG uses the following guidelines when reviewing the names of candidates for nomination to the Board of Regents:
•Nominees must be loyal members of the College who have demonstrated outstanding integrity and medical statesmanship, along with an unquestioned devotion to the highest principles of surgical practice.
•Nominees must have demonstrated leadership qualities that might be reflected by service and active participation on ACS committees or in other components of the College.
The NCBG recognizes the importance of Board of Regent members representing all health care professionals who practice surgery.
The NCBG also considers geography, surgical specialty balance, and academic or community practice.
The College encourages consideration of women and other underrepresented minorities. Individuals who are no longer in active surgical practice should not be nominated for election or reelection to the Board of Regents.All surgical specialties will be considered.
All nominations must include a letter of recommendation, a personal statement from the candidates detailing their ACS service, and the name of one reference. In addition, entities such as surgical specialty societies, ACS advisory councils, and ACS chapters that are submitting nominations must provide a description of their selection process and the total list of applicants reviewed. Any attempt to contact members of the NCBG by a candidate or on behalf of a candidate will be viewed in a negative manner and may result in disqualification of the candidate. Applications submitted without the requested information will not be considered.
The deadline for submitting nominations is February 27. Submit nominations to [email protected].
For more information, contact Betty Sanders, Staff Liaison for the NCBG, at 312-202-5360 or [email protected].
For information only, the current members of the Board of Regents who will be considered for re-election (all MD, FACS) are John L.D. Atkinson; Henri R. Ford; Enrique Hernandez; L. Scott Levin; Leigh A. Neumayer; Marshall Z. Schwartz; Beth H. Sutton; and Steven D. Wexner.