Enduring-module outline from a gap you already have

What you’re making

An outline for one enduring material: title, gap, objectives, module map, assessment sketch, the three dates that must appear on the thing, how credit will be calculated, and how you will know someone actually participated.

ACCME’s enduring material definition: on-demand, no fixed time or place, the learner decides whether and when to finish. Online modules, recorded talks, print, podcasts. This is a different Tuesday from RSS. Enduring is about 44 percent of activities in the 2025 Data Report, and about two thirds of learner interactions. Volume is not an excuse for a missing review date.

The dates and the PARS record

Providers must review each enduring material at least once every three years, or sooner if the science moved. The material cannot stay accredited past three years without that review. The review date, the original release date, and a termination date go on the enduring material. That is the content-validity rule.

In PARS, report the activity once for its life, start to end, up to three years. If you review and renew it, enter a new PARS activity. Do not extend the old one past a review you did not do.

Learners: people who completed all or a portion and whose participation you can verify. Individuals who only downloaded or accessed it do not count. Credit: the time it takes one learner to complete the activity.

If this recording is the same grand rounds, for the same staff who missed Thursday, it may still be the RSS. If it is for a different, broader audience, it is a second activity. See the PARS close companion.

What to have open

The gap and objectives. The clinical facts in your words. Format (module, recording, podcast, print) and a rough length you have actually timed or will time. The three dates, even if one is still a plan. How participation will be verified (post-test, attestation your office accepts, LMS completion). A previous module outline that survived review, for shape.

No patient identifiers. No unpublished faculty slides in an unapproved tool.

The prompt

I am outlining one accredited enduring material. I am the author of record. Do not invent clinical facts, a credit statement, a time-to-complete, or a learner count.

PRACTICE GAP:
[paste]

OBJECTIVES:
[paste]

CLINICAL FACTS I WILL STAND BEHIND:
[paste. Doses, thresholds, and guideline years only if I wrote them.]

FORMAT AND TIMED LENGTH:
[module / recording / podcast / print]. Time to complete, if I have timed it: [minutes or "not yet timed"].

DATES:
- Original release: [date or planned]
- Last review: [date or "not yet reviewed"]
- Termination: [date]

HOW WE VERIFY PARTICIPATION:
[post-test, LMS completion, other method we already use. Not "they downloaded it."]

PARS NOTES I ALREADY KNOW:
[new activity / renewal of a retired module / first entry]. If renewal, the old PARS record is closed.

HOUSE OUTLINE, FOR SHAPE:
[paste, or "none"]

Draft:
1. A working title and a one-paragraph description for the activity file, not for marketing.
2. A module map: sections, what the learner does in each, where the assessment sits. If my facts do not support a section, drop it and say so.
3. Three assessment items only if I supplied enough clinical facts. Flag any item that goes beyond my facts as [NEEDS: source].
4. A DATE BLOCK to put on the material: original release, last review, termination. If a date is missing, write [NEEDS:] instead of inventing one.
5. A CREDIT LINE that says credit equals time to complete, and writes [NEEDS: timed duration] if I have not timed it. No AMA or board sentence.
6. A LEARNER-COUNT RULE in one sentence: verified participation, not downloads.
7. A PARS LINE: one record for the life of this version, up to three years; renewal is a new activity.

Then list what is still missing from an activity file for this module.

What good output looks like

The map is short. The date block has holes if you left dates blank. Assessment items quote your facts or refuse. Nothing looks like a save-the-date.

How to check it

Medicine pass. Every dose, lab, and drug is in your source. Inventory them the way you would for cases.

Date pass. All three dates are on the outline or marked [NEEDS:]. A review older than three years, or a science change since the last review, is a stop.

Credit pass. Delete any designation statement you did not paste in. Duration is timed or tagged.

Learner pass. The outline does not treat opens, clicks, or downloads as completions.

PARS pass. Renewal is a new activity. The old record is not quietly extended.

Where it goes wrong

It writes a conference. Enduring is not “we are thrilled to welcome.” It is a thing someone finishes at 10 pm.

It forgets the review. Models will give you a beautiful module and no termination date. The file fails on the dates.

It counts the wrong people. Access logs are easy to summarize and they are not learners.

It turns Thursday’s RSS into an enduring without a second file. Same audience, missed session: still the series. New audience: new activity.

Enduring-module outline from a gap you already have · bettermethod.ai/recipes/enduring-module/ · Last reviewed August 2026
These tools change often. Check the review date before you rely on anything product-specific in here, and check the guidance against your own accreditor and organization policies.