David Katz (Chair), Jennifer Bretsch (Staff), Maria Agelli, Felix Aguilar, Mike Barry (Staff), Peter Briss (Guest), Michael Compton, Andrew Deckert (Guest), Dione Farria (Guest), Kevin Feig, Jim Guillory, Perrianne Lurie, Michael Noe (Guest), Clyde Schechter, Kevin Sherin, Steve Teutsch, Eileen Yamada, Stephanie Zaza.

David Katz called the Committee to order at 7:05 p.m. He welcomed the Committee members and guests and led the introductions. Guests included Peter Briss, MD, of CDC’s Community Guide, Dione Farria, MD, MPH, Assistant Professor of Radiology at the School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis and Michael Noe, MD, the Preventive Medicine Residency Director at SUNY-Buffalo.

David Katz stated the purpose of the position statements would be to link the recommendations of the USPSTF and the Community Guide (CPSTF); to address gaps in the literature; to address controversial issues; to consider the "whole person," and to not duplicate or replicate evidence-based reviews conducted by others. The Committee discussed and suggested a variety of practice issues/topics that could be addressed by this body. Members referred to a list of topics (draft) provided at the meeting for ideas.

Screening for depression in primary care was discussed as a topic. It was noted that the USPSTF recently addressed this issue and gave it an "I" rating for routine screening and a "B" rating for the general population when there is a screening system. The CPSTF is also now covering the same issue from the perspective of collaborative care and how to prevent a relapse. It was noted that it might be advantageous for ACPM to learn of the CPSTF results before addressing this issue with a position statement, even though that could be 1.5 years from now.

Additional comments included: neither of the Task Forces are addressing the topics of clinical genetics, alternative medicines, or the prevention of diabetes. The issue about total body scanning is cost versus value. Smallpox vaccination as a topic does not seem timely. Obesity and children are an important topic.

The Committee discussed being integrative when addressing any issue. Examples include, alcohol consumption and breast cancer or breastfeeding and the reduction of type 2 diabetes. It was noted that many of these topics are broad and could lead to more than one paper. The Committee decided that the prioritization of topics would be premature at this time since many Committee members have not offered suggestions.

The Committee commented on the draft peer-review guidance document that was provided in advance of the meeting. The Committee agreed that the form would be useful for providing a review of a position statement or policy review paper. There were two suggestions for improvements: 1) include more lines to write-in comments, and 2) ask the reviewers to disclose any conflict of interest they have with any aspect related to the authors or content of the policy.

Mike Barry presented information on the Maintenance of Policy Subcommittee. He noted that according to ACPM’s Policy Manual, a subcommittee would be established periodically to determine the process for maintaining, updating and/or to sunset a variety of ACPM policies. He mentioned that the membership of such a subcommittee would likely be comprised with members from the Policy and Prevention Practice Committees. The specific next steps are to be determined.

A suggestion was to stipulate the maximum life span for a policy when it is developed and to make a commitment on how often to review the policy.

Determining the College’s position on a topic: There was some discussion that suggested the authors/researchers should be ‘blinded’ from the position that the College would want to take and to let the authors do their evidence-based review, so that they would not be influenced. Then the PPC would review the evidence and decide on the position/stance.

MOU with AJPM: Discussion with the Journal is ongoing to determine the extent to which ACPM position statements will be included in the occasional AJPM issue. The focus of talks currently is whether external reviewers will review these position statements after they are submitted to AJPM. Several PPC members suggested that they would support a modified review (ACPM identify two reviewers and then submit all the comments and information on the review process to AJPM).

The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.