Spend :01 of your time each Monday morning as Twelve:01 delivers timely tools, trends, strategies, and/or compliance insights for the CME/CE enterprise.
Granola is an AI-powered notepad that captures audio directly from a user’s device rather than requiring a bot to join a meeting. The notepad generates detailed transcripts of what it records and can combine the notes you jot down in a structured, searchable format. For CME/CE teams, this could be particularly useful when documenting needs assessment conversations, post-activity debriefs, or committee decisions that require accurate records, pulling from various sources. The tool also allows users to build custom templates, which means teams could create consistent formats for tasks such as faculty onboarding calls or outcomes-related meetings. Notes can be queried after the fact, letting you “ask” what was said, and shared directly with other platforms like Slack or email, assisting in post-meeting follow-up actions.
A recent MAPS “Elevate” podcast highlighted a shift that many CME/CE professionals are already seeing: clinicians increasingly prefer shorter, on-demand, digitally delivered education over traditional day-long, live meetings. Critical, however, is ensuring that convenience does not come at the expense of scientific rigor, independence, or practical relevance, particularly as the volume of available content continues to grow. For accredited providers, this reinforces the need to select educational formats based on the activity’s intended results, rather than defaulting to long-standing delivery models that may no longer align with how clinicians learn or apply new knowledge and skills. The discussion also emphasized that effective digital CME/CE should create opportunities for peer exchange, community, and patient perspectives, not simply passive content consumption.
A recent BMJ Quality & Safety article highlights an important truth: the burden of diagnostic error depends heavily on how it is measured. Estimates can (and do) vary substantially based on whether researchers count only deaths, include avoidable harm or delayed diagnoses, or use chart reviews versus broader epidemiologic methods. While prior research has documented significant harm from misdiagnosis across major disease categories, there is no single universally accepted “true number” because diagnostic error is viewed through different methodological lenses. The authors argue that clearer definitions, better surveillance, and more transparent measurement approaches are needed to make results comparable and meaningful. As we focus on improvement, this serves as a solid reminder that before we can manage a problem effectively, we must first understand how we are measuring it.
