For anybody who was unable to attend, here is an update on the member Council situation/ PASSOR from the AAPMR meeting in San Diego. Final Sports SIG Meeting (Summary): MSK Council= New PASSOR -The MSK Council Chair and Chair Elect were chosen to facilitate a smooth transition from PASSOR, and to build on the successes of PASSOR -The Councils will have task specific work-groups which will be more action-based compared to the SIGs, and will be formed to accomplish specific tasks that have been identified e.g. Sports work group, spine work-group, etc. -Point was made that the Councils will be held directly accountable to the Council Advisory Committee and academy Board of Governors, which was not the case with the SIGs. -The MSK council will consider adopting AIUM Guidelines or may consider creating PM&R Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Guidelines based on the AIUM Guidelines. -The pass rate for Physiatrists taking the Sports Medicine boards for the first time was considerably lower in 2007/08 compared to other specialties (study up on your IM!). Final PASSOR Business Meeting (Summary): -PASSOR Approved fellowships will continue on as "Academy Approved" fellowships, which will eventually be expanded to include other subspecialties that do not have an ABMS certification, e.g. TBI, etc. utilizing the Academy Approved fellowship model of Neurosurgery and Orthopedic surgery. -The Spinal Procedures Workshops will continue through the MSK Council -PASSOR will be memorialized through an annual PASSOR Legacy Award Recap of Discussion prior to vote to dissolve PASSOR: There was a fair amount of skepticism voiced from a number of established MSK/Interventional Physiatrists in attendance, many of whom have contributed significantly to PASSOR over the years. A main worry was that the new MSK council would be weak and inactive, as opposed to PASSOR which has a proven track record. Proponents tried to provide reassurance that the Council system, as constructed, is a 1st approximation, and may be subject to change/re-organization if necessary. Also emphasized by proponents was the idea the council system was a way to give Physiatry in general a more organized, stronger voice (e.g. the Academy would be able to issue position statements on MSK issues, etc.), and to determine the direction of the Academy through more of a democratic process. The council system would keep everybody together, instead of us all going off and doing our own things in disorganized little groups. Discussion would begin in the councils and eventually make its way up to the Council Advisory Panel where proposals would be become policy. Final vote had many voting for the dissolution of PASSOR. None voting against, but a significant number abstaining. Final Pain SIG Meeting (Summary): The 5 membership councils were created to get more AAPMR members involved in the affairs and activities of the academy, creating more of a democratic process. The current set-up involves some 30+ SIGS with poor membership numbers, and poor attendance at Academy meetings (I can vouch for this as about 8 people showed up to the Pain SIG meeting). In the current system, only PASSOR really had the numbers and structure to affect any meaningful change. There will be a Council Advisory Panel consisting of the 5 Council chairs/chair-elects, chairs of the Strategic Coordinating Committees of the Board of Governors, the RPC chair, the Academy Executive Director and the Academy President and President-elect. MSK was split from Pain to make sure a MSK/Pain council did not overpower all other councils. Also, the academy thought there was enough of a difference between the MSK/Interventional Spine/Sports practicioners and the Chronic Pain/Functional Restoration practicioners to make a split. Issues that were brought up included: -The need for the creation of Academy endorsed Pain Management Treatment Guidelines -Continued work on an AAPMR or better yet ABPMR CAQ for interventional procedures Suggestions from membership included: 1. Creation of a sub-group/sub-council for Interventional Procedures, to exist between the MSK and Pain councils. 2. The need for the MSK and Pain councils to open dialogue/collaborate with other organizations with strong Physiatric representation such as ISIS, ASIPP, AAPM, NASS. My Personal Thoughts: Mixed feelings. This change does away with PASSOR which was a successful/proven organization with a track record of achievement. The council system theoretically has the potential to reach beyond PASSOR if we stay motivated/active. In addition, it provides opportunity for younger Physiatrists to be involved in the decision making process and the direction of the academy, i.e. each of us can actually vote in our primary councils, we can volunteer for work-groups, etc. Final note: The final Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Lecture was given by Michael Schaufele, M.D. advocating for the Multidisciplinary Spine Center to become the preferred future model for Interdisciplinary Musculoskeletal Care, in addition to advocating for quality MSK education in PM&R residencies, equipping Physiatrists with the skills necessary to thrive in such a model, and the value of a Physiatrist as the first line provider for musculoskeletal and spine care. So there it is. Thoughts? Anyone who attended the other SIG meetings, feel free to add to the thread.