Part 1: The Role of Member Feedback in Module Development
Q: As FMPE looks ahead to the coming year, there’s been discussion about highlighting what’s happening behind the scenes in module development. What prompted that conversation?
It really came out of a broader discussion about what’s upcoming in module development this year and what might be useful or interesting for members to know. When we talked it through as a team, we realized that while we’re constantly working on quality improvement projects, we’ve never formally talked about them in a way that’s visible to members.
Quality improvement is something that’s always happening in the background. It’s part of how we operate, not a separate initiative or an occasional review. But because we haven’t explicitly shared that work, most members probably aren’t aware of how much attention goes into continually improving the modules. This felt like a good opportunity to be more transparent and to highlight that quality improvement is a core value for us, not just a checkbox.
Over the next few articles in this series, we’ll talk about the different components of quality improvement and what development is taking shape in 2026.
Q: One of the quality improvement areas you identified is module feedback. How does FMPE approach feedback from members?
Module feedback is a really important part of our quality improvement process. Members are encouraged to provide feedback and can provide this in a few different ways, including through direct emails or through the feedback links embedded within the modules themselves. That feedback is actively collected, organized by our Module Development Administrator, Jennie Thode, and reviewed by one of our Senior Medical Editors—Dr. Liz Shaw—it doesn’t just sit unanswered.
We look at feedback in two ways. First, we examine comments related to individual modules. If someone has feedback—positive or negative—about a specific module, we review it in that context. At the same time, we also look across modules to see whether there are themes emerging. For example, are people repeatedly raising concerns about appendices, key points, or how statistics are presented? What specific parts of modules did members find the most useful? When we see patterns, it helps us identify areas that we need to focus on.
That broader, thematic view is a key part of quality improvement because it helps us improve not just one module, but the program as a whole.
Q: What happens when feedback relates to a specific module?
All feedback related to a specific module is shared with the original writing team. If the feedback is positive, we make a point of celebrating that. We let authors and editors know what resonated with members, whether it’s a particular case, the clarity of the writing, or how practical the content felt. That kind of feedback often informs how people approach their next module.
If the feedback points to something that’s unclear, incorrect, or could be improved, that information is typically directed to the editor. From there, it becomes our responsibility to follow up with the member who raised the issue. Sometimes that follow-up simply involves clarifying what was written. In other cases, it can lead to further discussion, especially because members often see FMPE as a trusted source and come to us with related questions once they’ve engaged deeply with a topic.
Q: How does FMPE handle situations where an error is identified in a module?
Thankfully, significant errors are rare, but they do occasionally happen. Minor issues—such as typos or small grammatical errors—are always appreciated when members point them out, and we correct them where possible.
There have also been situations where members have identified more substantive issues, such as inconsistencies between different sections of a module or information in an algorithm that wasn’t updated after a change elsewhere in the content. When that happens, we go back to the original module and make the necessary corrections. The corrected version is clearly marked so that future readers know an amendment was made.
In the online interactive version, updates can be made relatively easily. PDFs require an additional step, as the document needs to be revised and re-uploaded. Of course, printed versions can’t be changed, so in those cases we communicate corrections through other channels, such as the newsletter.
Q: Can you share an example of how feedback has led to a broader quality improvement initiative?
One example that really stands out involved a module on outpatient-based emergency care from many years ago. A dosage chart for epinephrine included a decimal error that would have resulted in a tenfold difference in dosing. It was caught quickly and corrected, but understandably, it was taken very seriously.
That experience prompted a much larger quality improvement effort around medication tables. As a result, we now work closely with consultant pharmacists who review medication tables across modules to ensure accuracy.
Today, we routinely involve pharmacists in this process, and that layer of review has become part of our standard approach. It’s a good example of how a single issue can lead to a lasting improvement in how we develop and review content.
Q: How would you describe the relationship between FMPE and its members when it comes to feedback?
One thing we often emphasize is that the people developing and editing modules are members themselves. We use the modules, we participate in groups, and we have a vested interest in ensuring the content is practical, accurate, and useful. There isn’t a sharp divide between FMPE and the membership—we see ourselves as part of the same community.
Our programs are also co-created with members at every stage. From responses to the annual topic poll, to early roundtable discussions about objectives and cases, to piloting modules with groups across the country, member input shapes module topics, focus and the final product. Because of that, we genuinely welcome questions and feedback. While there are practical limits to how much communication we can handle, we’ve always taken a personalized, thoughtful approach to member interactions, and we take that responsibility seriously.
Q: Beyond feedback on individual modules, are there other ways FMPE supports quality improvement in module development?
Yes, another important piece is our annual workshop for authors and editors, which typically takes place in May. This is an opportunity to bring everyone together and focus specifically on improving the quality of our modules. Each year, we offer sessions on different aspects of writing and development, including a dedicated workshop on writing effective InfoPoints. We also share an overview of module feedback and any identified themes.
These sessions allow authors and editors to work through the process together, understand what makes an InfoPoint truly useful in practice, and explore how best to present information so it can be applied in real clinical settings. It’s another way we invest in continuous learning and quality improvement within the organization.
In the following articles in this series, I’ll also be talking about other areas of quality improvement: for instance, how we approach patient handouts; (EDIA) equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility; and how we carefully consider language use in the writing of modules to ensure it is inclusive in scope and non-oppressive in tone.
