[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Should We Rely on AI to Help Avoid Bias in Patient Selection for Major Surgery?

Learning Objectives
1. Explain a new or unfamiliar viewpoint on a topic of ethical or professional conduct
2. Evaluate the usefulness of this information for health care practice, teaching, or conduct
3. Decide whether and when to apply the new information to health care practice, teaching, or conduct
1 Credit CME
Abstract

Many regard iatrogenic injuries as consequences of diagnosis or intervention actions. But inaction—not offering indicated major surgery—can also result in iatrogenic injury. This article explores some surgeons’ overestimations of operative risk based on patients’ race and socioeconomic status as unduly influential in their decisions about whether to perform major cancer or cardiac surgery on some patients with appropriate clinical indications. This article also considers artificial intelligence and machine learning-based clinical decision support systems that might offer more accurate, individualized risk assessment that could make patient selection processes more equitable, thereby mitigating racial and ethnic inequity in cancer and cardiac disease.

Risk Assessment and Inequity

Quiz Ref IDIt is well documented that Black patients die more often from cancer and heart disease than do similarly matched White patients.14 While multiple factors account for this disparity, given equivalent indications, Black patients are less likely to receive complex cardiac and oncologic surgical treatment than White patients.512 This disparity has largely been attributed to lack of access to complex surgical care and patient refusal to undergo surgery.58,1014 However, these factors disregard the role surgeons play in patient selection for major surgery and the potential for biased assessments based on race or socioeconomic status to influence surgical judgment.8,15,16 We propose that the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) for clinical decision support (CDS) can reduce bias and promote data-driven decisions about patients’ eligibility for major surgery.

Patient Selection

Patient selection for major surgery is a highly venerated and rarely challenged prerogative of the surgeon.1719 Surgical judgment is influenced by both objective and subjective assessments, the latter often dominating the final decision. For many types of cancer and cardiac diseases, surgery represents a patient’s only possibility for long-term survival.59,11,12,20,21 Thus, when patients are not offered surgical treatment, they are likely to die from the underlying disease. For both cardiac disease and cancer, the failure of surgeons to offer potentially lifesaving surgery likely contributes to observed racial disparities.

One of the most common reasons surgeons give when refusing to operate on a patient with an appropriate indication is that the patient is considered to be at too high a risk for complications or death.18 Surgeons assess the risks and benefits of operating and of not operating on a patient.18 Professional responsibility requires that the benefit of operating and the risk of not operating be sufficiently skewed so as to justify performing the operation.22,23 This consideration raises 2 important questions: (1) how a patient’s risk is assessed and (2) whether concern about outcome metrics unduly affects surgical judgment.

Risk assessment. Surgical risk is an assessment of the likelihood that a patient will suffer a complication or death related to an operation.18 Surgical risk calculators have been developed to predict the likelihood of perioperative morbidity and mortality.2427 In general, as patients amass comorbidities, their surgical risk increases. Recently, frailty scores have been introduced as a way to quasi-quantitatively assess what many surgeons call the “eyeball test,” their subjective appraisal of how frail a patient is.28,29 The more frail the patient, the greater is the risk of complications and death.30 But any assessment that relies on individual observation risks introducing bias.

Indeed, surgeons have estimated similar comorbidities to be more severe in Black patients than in White patients, and Black patients have been offered aggressive treatment less often than White patients with equivalent indications.15,20,3136 Because of the association between race and socioeconomic status, a surgeon might assess angina in a well-dressed, upper-middle-class White man differently than in a Black man experiencing housing insecurity with a medically equivalent condition. Similarly, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease of equal severity may look very different in a White woman who was driven to the consultation than in a Black woman who took public transportation and then walked several blocks to reach the surgeon’s office. Quiz Ref IDBlack patients who are poor and undereducated may appear on an eyeball test to be more frail and higher risk than well-nourished, well-rested patients.

Besides being biased by socioeconomic factors that may cause Black patients to be judged at higher risk for surgery, surgical decisions may also be affected by ostensibly objective data indicating that, for major cancer and cardiac surgery, Black patients have higher mortality rates, higher rates of postoperative complications, higher readmission rates, and longer lengths of stay than similarly matched White patients.8,9,14,3742 These reported outcomes, which are closely associated with socioeconomic status, could further justify the surgeon’s subjective assessment of the patient’s potential for a successful postoperative and posthospital recovery.

Elevated mortality rates of Black patients undergoing major surgery are often attributed to these patients’ lack of access to high-quality surgical care.8,9,38,41,43 The typical reasoning is that Black patients often seek care at lower quality hospitals and by less experienced surgeons, and thus they suffer complications and death more frequently.38,39,41,43 This line of reasoning presumes that Black patients themselves choose lower-quality surgical care, disregarding the distinct possibility that these hospitals and surgeons may be the only ones who are willing to accept those Black patients whom higher-quality hospitals with more experienced surgeons have deemed too high risk. A plausible scenario that deserves further investigation is whether Black patients are cared for in lower quality hospitals because the surgeons at those hospitals do not judge Black patients to be as high risk as do their colleagues at higher quality medical centers.

One proposed solution to the problem of unequal access is the take the “Access Pledge,” whereby high-quality, high-volume medical centers assure equal access to all patients.44 However, Black patients who have access to high-volume hospitals can still experience bias in selection for surgery, prompting some to seek treatment where they can access unbiased surgical assessment.

Outcome metrics. In addition to a biased subjective risk assessment, outcome metrics may affect a surgeon’s objectivity in deciding whether to recommend a patient for major surgery. As a result of excessive iatrogenic injury among hospitalized patients, the late 1990s saw the introduction of quality metrics, including surgeon-specific measures of operative mortality and major complications.4548 While the aim was to improve the quality of surgical care, these metrics could also disincentivize some surgeons from operating on patients they perceive as too high risk. Such decisions in part reflect surgeons’ own self-interest in not having their outcome metrics “look bad” before their peers and hospital administrators. A surgeon could thus decide that there is less risk and greater benefit in not operating or greater risk and less benefit in performing the operation. Furthermore, there is no system of accountability for a surgeon’s refusal to operate on a patient, regardless of the underlying reason.49

Use of AI/ML CDS

Quiz Ref IDHow can potential surgeon bias in patient selection for major surgery be remedied? While interventions such as race-specific feedback on treatment completion rates and the use of nurse navigators have been shown to reduce racial disparities in care for early-stage lung cancer,50 such interventions are downstream of the potentially biased clinical decisions that directly affect patient outcomes. What is needed is an objective system that can share agency with a surgeon in selecting patients for complex surgery. The use of AI/ML CDS systems holds great promise for debiasing surgical decision making.

Quiz Ref IDImplementing AI/ML CDS could debias patient selection for complex surgery in 3 ways. First, the system could provide an objective, accurate, and individualized assessment of surgical risk based on information from the patient’s medical record rather than subjective appraisals.51,52 In other settings, standardizing clinical decisions and postoperative pathways has been shown to reduce racial disparities among surgical patients.33,5355 Second, the system would not be affected by concern for reported outcome metrics that might otherwise bias surgical judgment. Finally, the system could track not only the patients accepted for surgery but also those declined for surgery, thus providing a mechanism for recognizing biased trends.

Quiz Ref IDAlthough AI/ML systems have been associated with perpetuating rather than resolving bias,56 they are neither inherently biased nor essentially unethical. One way to debias AI is by carefully examining the assumptions the algorithm uses to make predictions and the data on which the system is trained. In one study, an algorithm was used to predict which patients would have the greatest future health care needs.56 The system used data from past health care expenses and assumed the data would reflect the severity of underlying illness to predict future health needs. The algorithm systematically underestimated future health care needs for Black patients because they utilized health care resources less often than did White patients, regardless of severity of underlying illness, and thus had overall lower historic health care expenses. The algorithmic assumption was wrong in that past health care expenses did not predict future health care needs.

In the same way, AI/ML surgical risk calculators could perpetuate racial bias if the algorithm assumes that operative morbidity and mortality are due entirely to underlying patient comorbidities and inherent patient risk. Nonpatient-controlled factors, such as hospital and surgeon volume, can also affect operative morbidity and mortality.57 To make accurate predictions, an algorithm would need to weigh these other factors and not assume that operative outcome is entirely patient dependent.

An AI/ML system that is trained to make predictions based on assumptions that rely on historically biased data will perpetuate those same biases. If the assumptions can be corrected, then the predictions will become more reliable.58,59 In debiasing AI/ML CDS, it is imperative to differentiate association and causation. It may be true that being Black is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and worse long-term survival after major cancer surgery, but these outcomes are not caused by being Black. For AI/ML CDS to debias patient selection for major surgery, race-associated outcomes should be assumed to be based not solely on inherent patient risk but on inequitable health care structures as well.60

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Our websites may be periodically unavailable between 12:00am CT December 10, 2022 and 4:00pm CT December 11, 2022 for regularly scheduled maintenance.

The AMA Journal of Ethics exists to help medical students, physicians and all health care professionals navigate ethical decisions in service to patients and society. The journal publishes cases and expert commentary, medical education articles, policy discussions, peer-reviewed articles for journal-based, video CME, audio CME, visuals, and more. Learn more

Article Information

AMA Journal of Ethics

AMA J Ethics. 2022;24(8):E773-780.

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement:

The American Medical Association designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships.

If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The author(s) had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The viewpoints expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the AMA.

Author Information:

  • Charles E. Binkley, MD is a surgeon and bioethicist who serves as the director of bioethics for the central region at Hackensack Meridian Health and is a clinical assistant professor of surgery at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Nutley, New Jersey. He is also a bioethics scholar at Santa Clara University in California. His interests include surgical ethics and the ethical use of artificial intelligence for surgical decision making; David S. Kemp, JD is a legal education specialist. He is a former legal writing professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and has taught lawyering skills classes at UC Hastings College of the Law, Berkeley School of Law, and Rutgers Law School. His interests include educational justice, inclusive information design, and the use of empathic pedagogy to mitigate classroom inequity; Brandi Braud Scully, MD, MS is a congenital heart surgery fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts and a bioethicist. She recently completed the Hecht-Levi postdoctoral fellowship in bioethics at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and is currently a member of the Surgical Ethics Working Group at the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics. She works at the intersection of cardiothoracic surgery and ethics, with a focus on surgical decision making and medical uncertainty.

References
1.
American Cancer Society.  Cancer facts and figures for African Americans, 2019-2021.  American Cancer Society; 2019. Accessed June 10, 2022. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-african-americans-2019-2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
2.
Cancer and African Americans.  Office of Minority Health, US Department of Health and Human Services.  Accessed September 29, 2021. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=16
3.
Heart disease and African Americans.  Office of Minority Health, US Department of Health and Human Services Updated February 11, 2021.  Accessed September 29, 2021. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=19
4.
Van Dyke  M, Greer  S, Odom  E,  et al.  Heart disease death rates among blacks and whites aged ≥ 35 years—United States, 1968-2015.  MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018;67(5):1–11.Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Abraham  A, Al-Refaie  WB, Parsons  HM, Dudeja  V, Vickers  SM, Habermann  EB.  Disparities in pancreas cancer care.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(6):2078–2087.Google ScholarCrossref
6.
Bach  PB, Cramer  LD, Warren  JL, Begg  CB.  Racial differences in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer.  N Engl J Med. 1999;341(16):1198–1205.Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Epstein  AM, Weissman  JS, Schneider  EC, Gatsonis  C, Leape  LL, Piana  RN.  Race and gender disparities in rates of cardiac revascularization: do they reflect appropriate use of procedures or problems in quality of care?  Med Care. 2003;41(11):1240–1255.Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Hravnak  M, Ibrahim  S, Kaufer  A, Sonel  A, Conigliaro  J.  Racial disparities in outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting.  J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2006;21(5):367–378.Google ScholarCrossref
9.
Johnston  FM, Yeo  HL, Clark  C, Stewart  JH  IV.  Bias issues in colorectal cancer management: a review.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(4):2166–2173.Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Lin  JJ, Mhango  G, Wall  MM,  et al.  Cultural factors associated with racial disparities in lung cancer care.  Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014;11(4):489–495.Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Lutfi  W, Zenati  MS, Zureikat  AH, Zeh  HJ, Hogg  ME.  Health disparities impact expected treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma nationally.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(7):1860–1867.Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Savitch  SL, Grenda  TR, Scott  W,  et al.  Racial disparities in rates of surgery for esophageal cancer: a study from the National Cancer Database.  J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25(3):581–592.Google ScholarCrossref
13.
Coffman  A, Torgeson  A, Lloyd  S.  Correlates of refusal of surgery in the treatment of non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(1):98–108.Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Richardson  CJ, Itua  P, Duong  T, Lewars  J, Tiesenga  F.  Racial and socioeconomic disparities in congenital heart surgery: a research article.  J Card Surg. 2021;36(7):2454–2457.Google ScholarCrossref
15.
Greenberg  CC, Weeks  JC, Stain  SC.  Disparities in oncologic surgery.  World J Surg. 2008;32(4):522–528.Google ScholarCrossref
16.
van Ryn  M.  Research on the provider contribution to race/ethnicity disparities in medical care.  Med Care. 2002;40(1) (suppl):I140–I151.Google Scholar
17.
Eddy  DM.  Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Anatomy of a decision.  JAMA. 1990;263(3):441–443.Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Sacks  GD, Dawes  AJ, Ettner  SL,  et al.  Surgeon perception of risk and benefit in the decision to operate.  Ann Surg. 2016;264(6):896–903.Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Yule  S, Flin  R, Paterson-Brown  S, Maran  N.  Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room: a review of the literature.  Surgery. 2006;139(2):140–149.Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Cykert  S, Dilworth-Anderson  P, Monroe  MH,  et al.  Factors associated with decisions to undergo surgery among patients with newly diagnosed early-stage lung cancer.  JAMA. 2010;303(23):2368–2376.Google ScholarCrossref
21.
Taioli  E, Wolf  AS, Camacho-Rivera  M,  et al.  Racial disparities in esophageal cancer survival after surgery.  J Surg Oncol. 2016;113(6):659–664.Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Shuman  AG, Fins  JJ.  A surgeon’s dilemma.  Hastings Cent Rep. 2016;46(3):9–10.Google ScholarCrossref
23.
Shuman  AG.  Contemplating resectability.  Hastings Cent Rep. 2017;47(6):3–4.Google ScholarCrossref
24.
Clark  DE, Fitzgerald  TL, Dibbins  AW.  Procedure-based postoperative risk prediction using NSQIP data.  J Surg Res. 2018;221:322–327.Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Cohen  ME, Liu  Y, Ko  CY, Hall  BL.  An examination of American College of Surgeons NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator accuracy.  J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224(5):787–795.e1.Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Lubitz  AL, Chan  E, Zarif  D,  et al.  American College of Surgeons NSQIP risk calculator accuracy for emergent and elective colorectal operations.  J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(5):601–611.Google ScholarCrossref
27.
Sacks  GD, Dawes  AJ, Ettner  SL,  et al.  Impact of a risk calculator on risk perception and surgical decision making: a randomized trial.  Ann Surg. 2016;264(6):889–895.Google ScholarCrossref
28.
Allen  KB.  Frailty: it’s hard to define, but you know it when you see it.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(6):3117–3118.Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Speir  A.  Defining frailty: “I know it when I see it.”  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(3):875–876.Google ScholarCrossref
30.
Sepehri  A, Beggs  T, Hassan  A,  et al.  The impact of frailty on outcomes after cardiac surgery: a systematic review.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(6):3110–3117.Google ScholarCrossref
31.
Green  AR, Carney  DR, Pallin  DJ,  et al.  Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients.  J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(9):1231–1238.Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Haider  AH, Sexton  J, Sriram  N,  et al.  Association of unconscious race and social class bias with vignette-based clinical assessments by medical students.  JAMA. 2011;306(9):942–951.Google ScholarCrossref
33.
Lau  BD, Haider  AH, Streiff  MB,  et al.  Eliminating health care disparities with mandatory clinical decision support: the venous thromboembolism (VTE) example.  Med Care. 2015;53(1):18–24.Google ScholarCrossref
34.
Sabin  JA, Rivara  FP, Greenwald  AG.  Physician implicit attitudes and stereotypes about race and quality of medical care.  Med Care. 2008;46(7):678–685.Google ScholarCrossref
35.
Schulman  KA, Berlin  JA, Harless  W,  et al.  The effect of race and sex on physicians’ recommendations for cardiac catheterization.  N Engl J Med. 1999;340(8):618–626.Google ScholarCrossref
36.
van Ryn  M, Fu  SS.  Paved with good intentions: do public health and human service providers contribute to racial/ethnic disparities in health?  Am J Public Health. 2003;93(2):248–255.Google ScholarCrossref
37.
Ellis  L, Canchola  AJ, Spiegel  D, Ladabaum  U, Haile  R, Gomez  SL.  Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer survival: the contribution of tumor, sociodemographic, institutional, and neighborhood characteristics.  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(1):25–33.Google ScholarCrossref
38.
Khera  R, Vaughan-Sarrazin  M, Rosenthal  GE, Girotra  S.  Racial disparities in outcomes after cardiac surgery: the role of hospital quality.  Curr Cardiol Rep. 2015;17(5):29.Google ScholarCrossref
39.
Lam  MB, Raphael  K, Mehtsun  WT,  et al.  Changes in racial disparities in mortality after cancer surgery in the US, 2007.  JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2027415.Google ScholarCrossref
40.
Mehtsun  WT, Figueroa  JF, Zheng  J, Orav  EJ, Jha  AK.  Racial disparities in surgical mortality: the gap appears to have narrowed.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(6):1057–1064.Google ScholarCrossref
41.
Rangrass  G, Ghaferi  AA, Dimick  JB.  Explaining racial disparities in outcomes after cardiac surgery: the role of hospital quality.  JAMA Surg. 2014;149(3):223–227.Google ScholarCrossref
42.
Sukumar  S, Ravi  P, Sood  A,  et al.  Racial disparities in operative outcomes after major cancer surgery in the United States.  World J Surg. 2015;39(3):634–643.Google ScholarCrossref
43.
Bristow  RE, Zahurak  ML, Ibeanu  OA.  Racial disparities in ovarian cancer surgical care: a population-based analysis.  Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(2):364–368.Google ScholarCrossref
44.
Binkley  CE, Kemp  DS.  Ethical centralization of high-risk surgery requires racial and economic justice.  Ann Surg. 2020;272(6):917–918.Google ScholarCrossref
45.
Clark  RE.  It is time for a national cardiothoracic surgical data base.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1989;48(6):755–756.Google ScholarCrossref
46.
Daley  J, Khuri  SF, Henderson  W,  et al.  Risk adjustment of the postoperative morbidity rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: results of the National Veterans Affairs Surgical Risk Study.  J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(4):328–340.Google Scholar
47.
Institute of Medicine.  Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academy Press; 2001.
48.
Khuri  SF, Daley  J, Henderson  W,  et al.  Risk adjustment of the postoperative mortality rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: results of the National Veterans Affairs Surgical Risk Study.  J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(4):315–327.Google Scholar
49.
Anyanwu  AC.  The vagaries of patient selection in cardiovascular surgery.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(3):842–846.Google ScholarCrossref
50.
Cykert  S, Eng  E, Walker  P,  et al.  A system-based intervention to reduce Black-White disparities in the treatment of early stage lung cancer: a pragmatic trial at five cancer centers.  Cancer Med. 2019;8(3):1095–1102.Google ScholarCrossref
51.
Balch  J, Upchurch  GR  Jr, Bihorac  A, Loftus  TJ.  Bridging the artificial intelligence valley of death in surgical decision-making.  Surgery. 2021;169(4):746–748.Google ScholarCrossref
52.
Loftus  TJ, Tighe  PJ, Filiberto  AC,  et al.  Artificial intelligence and surgical decision-making.  JAMA Surg. 2020;155(2):148–158.Google ScholarCrossref
53.
Hoyler  MM, White  RS, Tam  CW.  Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols may help reduce racial and socioeconomic disparities in cardiac surgery.  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020;34(2):569–570.Google ScholarCrossref
54.
Leeds  IL, Alimi  Y, Hobson  DR,  et al.  Racial and socioeconomic differences manifest in process measure adherence for enhanced recovery after surgery pathway.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(10):1092–1101.Google ScholarCrossref
55.
Wahl  TS, Goss  LE, Morris  MS,  et al.  Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) eliminates racial disparities in postoperative length of stay after colorectal surgery.  Ann Surg. 2018;268(6):1026–1035.Google ScholarCrossref
56.
Obermeyer  Z, Powers  B, Vogeli  C, Mullainathan  S.  Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations.  Science. 2019;366(6464):447–453.Google ScholarCrossref
57.
Birkmeyer  JD, Stukel  TA, Siewers  AE, Goodney  PP, Wennberg  DE, Lucas  FL.  Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States.  N Engl J Med. 2003;349(22):2117–2127.Google ScholarCrossref
58.
Johnson-Mann  CN, Loftus  TJ, Bihorac  A.  Equity and artificial intelligence in surgical care.  JAMA Surg. 2021;156(6):509–510.Google ScholarCrossref
59.
Turner Lee  N, Resnick  P, Barton  G.  Algorithmic bias detection and mitigation: best practices and policies to reduce consumer harms.  Brookings Institution. May 22, 2019. Accessed September 29, 2021. https://www.brookings.edu/research/algorithmic-bias-detection-and-mitigation-best-practices-and-policies-to-reduce-consumer-harms/
60.
Vyas  DA, Eisenstein  LG, Jones  DS.  Hidden in plain sight—reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms.  N Engl J Med. 2020;383(9):874–882.Google ScholarCrossref
AMA CME Accreditation Information

CME Expiration Date: %creditExp:1%

Credit Designation Statement:  The American Medical Association designates this %creditFormat% activity for a maximum of %creditCount:1% AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to: 

  • %creditCount:1% Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;
  • %creditCount:1% Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;
  • %creditCount:1% MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program; and
  • %creditCount:1% Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program;

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.

Close
Close
Close
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close