Decision on ACGME

In response to outreach from individual members of the podiatric community, ACGME agreed to explore the possibility of offering accreditation to podiatric medicine, if there was interest from the podiatric community. ACGME would consider approach, form, and structure as part of the exploration.

After an initial discussion with ACGME, APMA shared this information with the leadership of its component organizations and with the leadership of other large podiatric organizations with a stake in residency training including CPME, AACPM, COTH, ABPM, ABFAS, and ACFAS. In recent weeks, we held meetings with many key stakeholders within the profession to discuss the pros and cons of participating in an exploratory process with ACGME. We also gathered written feedback from stakeholders. The feedback was shared with our Board of Trustees at their September virtual meeting to determine whether and how to move ahead.

The feedback gathered from the profession made clear that while there is some curiosity within the profession about pursuing accreditation by ACGME, there also is widespread uncertainty and apprehension about this process. Stakeholders raised concerns about autonomy, the impact for residency programs and graduates, competing strategic priorities, and more. Additionally, with many unknown variables in terms of approach, form, and structure, there was no guarantee pursuing this path would help podiatry to achieve parity through accreditation.

Our board weighed these concerns and determined that this question requires significantly more input from the profession and would ultimately need to be vetted by our House of Delegates (HOD). Based on that determination, the board voted at this time not to participate further in the process with ACGME.

Matters of significant magnitude affecting the profession, especially when there is no clear consensus, should be debated in an open and transparent process through the House of Delegates. We recognize that there are many opinions on this issue, and it's essential that all these voices are represented. To that end, we encourage members to reach out to APMA and those groups who represent you to provide feedback. Additionally, APMA will review our governance documents to address how issues of magnitude come before the association in the future.

Until the HOD provides direction on the issue of ACGME accreditation, APMA will remain laser-focused on the pressing strategic and operational priorities our board and house have approved, including student recruitment, advocacy on behalf of the profession, continued growth and development of the member value proposition, support for our component organizations, recognition of podiatry among the public, our task force on the status of podiatric education and training, the reimagining of our educational offerings, and operational effectiveness as an organization. These initiatives require staff time, significant member involvement, and resources to execute effectively, and they have the demonstrated support of our community of interest.

APMA gratefully acknowledges the many individuals and organizations that answered our call for input and took the time to provide initial feedback on this matter in recent weeks. It takes the entire podiatric community coming together to effect change on behalf of the profession. We look forward to continued collaboration and support from our partners, our components, and our individual members as we tackle the most critical issues facing podiatry.