PIFmanship 101
(or how to survive writing/reviewing program
information forms)
Ann M. Dohn, MA Director, GME
Designated Institutional Official (DIO) &
Nancy Piro, PhD
Program Manager/Education Specialist
Stanford University Medical Center
Department of Graduate Medical Education
Disclosure
No conflicts of interest to report
Disclosure #2
We have made every attempt
to protect the identities of the
guilty.
PIFmanship 101
“I see a Site Visit
coming in your
future…”
PIF Writing 101
Gentle words of wisdom…
– The first impression of your
program for the site visitor will be
your PIF.
Be accurate
Answer the questions (be terse…be
tight)
Have documentation to back up your
answers
Start early-it takes months to write a
good PIF
This is not something your mother,
spouse, best friend, or admin asst.
can do for you!
General Information
Glossary of ACGME terms :
http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/abo
ut/ab_ACGMEglossary.pdf
Examples of “common information”
required in the PIFs we provide to
our Program Directors &
Coordinators:
1) Hospital Statistics:
– 613 Licensed Beds at SHC
– 272 Beds at LPCH
52 Obstetric
220 Pediatric
2. Major Participating
Institutions (Affiliates)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Children's Health Council
[058191]
Kaiser Permanente Medical
Center (Santa Clara) [050571]
Kaiser Santa Teresa [058092]
Lucile Salter Packard Children's
Hospital at Stanford [050572]
San Mateo Medical Center
[050585]
Santa Clara Valley Medical
Center [050438]
Veterans Affairs Palo Alto
Health Care System [050273]
3. Library Resources
http://lane.stanford.edu/biomedresources/index.html?laneNav=3
Background
There are actually 2 PIFS to
complete:
– The Common PIF
Addresses the program’s compliance with
the Common Program Requirements
common to all GME programs.
The common PIF is electronically
generated through the Web Accreditation
Data System (WebADS)
– The Specialty PIF
Addresses compliance with the specialty
specific program requirements
Word document downloaded from the
ACGME Site
Common PIF
Common Program Information Form
www.acgme.org
Use your ACGME assigned User ID &
password
Go to the PIF preparation section (left hand
menu)
Update the Common PIF data.
Most of the data should be updated annually
by your coordinator.
The common PIF contains questions
regarding participating sites, faculty CVs,
evaluation, and duty hours.
Some information is entered only at site visit
time.
Once all of the data is entered and
VALIDATED
Print
Version Control
Start by keeping track of which
version of the PIF you are
working on…
You must hit “refresh” in
WEBADS to save your
changes
“Refresh” before printing
Common PIF –1
Common PIF
Data feeds from ACGME
WebADS
TWO (or THREE) Original
Signatures Required
– Program Director
– Core Program Director for
Fellowships
– DIO
Oops
Do you really need to have
original signatures on the face
page?
– YES!!!!!!
– (we were cited on this)
Common PIF – 2
Common PIF
Respond to previous citations
– Data feeds from ACGME
WebADS
– If you had a progress report due,
the data remains in WebADS
Automatically populated into your
next PIF
Oops
Common PIF
Major Changes are:
– Only since last site visit
– Program Format, e.g.,
Have you gone from 3 to 4 years?
– Change in Resident
Complement?
– Change in Program Leadership?
– Change in Participating Sites?
Ah Come On Now…
Too Little (they had a
new program director)
Too Much (they had
an old program
director)
List the outstanding or special feature of the program
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stanford’s fellowship program has a long history of training academicians and
future leaders in XX
and XX and is greatly enhanced by the NIH institutional grants and the tremendous
resources available at Stanford University. The program has an NIH Institutional
Research Training grant (T32) for the past 20+ years, and the division also has an
NIH institutional Digestive Disease Center grant (P30) for the past 10+ years which is
currently undergoing re-submission. The Stanford campus has great talents and
excellent opportunities for both education and research. The key faculty members
have strong patient care and research activities, and are recognized leaders in their
fields both nationally and internationally. The institutional training grant provides
both salary and tuition support for fellows to initiate and eventually pursue an
academic career. In terms of research, one important feature of the fellowship
program is the tremendous amount of expertise and resources available at Stanford
University. Increasingly, we are encouraging fellows to be co-mentored by faculty
members in other fields and be groomed to be the future leaders in those fields
through an inter-disciplinary
approach between the and other Divisions or Departments of the School of
Medicine. We have a long
track record of training fellows in health outcomes research, in collaboration with
the Stanford Health Policy and Research Center. Fellows pursuing a career in this
field usually also enroll in a formal Master’s degree program during their second
and third year of their fellowship. The second area is Biodesign. This is a natural fit
for XX since this is a procedure-oriented subspecialty with emerging areas of
biodesign research activities, such as natural orifice translumenal endoscopic
surgery (NOTES), that require the development of new equipment and techniques.
Stanford has a world renowned biodesign group, that is training leaders in
biomedical
technology and innovation and has been offering a 1-year biodesign fellowship
since 2001. We have developed a Biodesign tract in our fellowship program in which
our fellows spend their second year as a biodesign fellow and spending the third
year in completing a research project in biodesign. Another new program is
modeled after the biodesign program but focuses on operational research is the
Clinical Excellence Research center. One of our current second year fellows is
being co-mentored by Dr. Arnold Milstein, Director of the Clinical Excellence
Research Center. Further we are in the process of developing a research tract in in
conjunction with the Global Health Program at Stanford and one of our 2012 fellows
will be focusing on this. All these opportunities make the Stanford XX fellowship
program unique in the country and the world, generating pioneers in new research
areas
and training future research and academic leaders.
A major strength of our clinical program is its diverse patient population cared for
by a diverse faculty of basic and …
Common PIF – 3
Common PIF
Participating Sites
– Feeds from ACGME WebADS
– Stanford, for example, is NOT a
single limited site sponsor as we
have 85 programs
– Only required sites appear on
the PIF
Required means all residents rotate
to that site
– Length of rotation
Make sure the length of rotations
adds up to 12 months per year
across all sites
Common PIF - 4
Common PIF
Participating Sites
– Program Letters of Agreement
(PLAs)
We provide a PLA template on our
GME Website for Programs to use
Must be signed and dated
The PLA may be between you and
yourself…
Common PIF - 5
Common PIF
Program Director MUST be able to
approve the teaching faculty
The Program Director MUST
evaluate the faculty and approve
continuation as teaching faculty
Program Directors MUST comply
with the university’s or medical
center’s policies on selection,
evaluation, promotion, disciplinary
action and supervision.
– e.g., at Stanford we refer them to: The
GME Housestaff Policies and
Procedures – on the GME Website
http://med.stanford.edu/gme/policy/
Common PIF
The Program Director MUST
be familiar with ACGME
Policies and Procedures
– Institutional Requirements
– Common Requirements
– Program Specific Requirements
Common PIF
Physician Faculty Roster
– List Alphabetically and by Site
– Faculty who spend at least 10
hrs per week in resident
education
– Make sure the data matches
their CVs
Common PIF
Faculty Teaching Staff
– Hours/week devoted to
education
Should be realistic
– Board certification
If double boarded include both
boards
If you are sub-specialty program
director or faculty, ensure primary
boards are included
Oops
Common PIF- 6
Common PIF
Potential Area for a HUGE
number of citations for
Programs:
– Must be totally completed (no
BLANKS)
– Ensure certification is valid
– Ensure license is current and
hasn’t lapsed
– Is your program director board
certified?
– Are your faculty board certified?
– How old are the publications?
– How old are the appointments?
– Etc..
Are We Confused?
Concise Summary of Role in
Program:
Dr. Donald Duck is the Chief of
the “Animation” Fellowship
program. The associate director
is Dr. Mickey Mouse the former
director. In the capacity of CoDirector of the Fellowship, he
serves to devise and structure
the clinical training rotations for
the fellows
Common PIF
– Concise Summary of Role in
Program:
<Program Director> oversees
the operations of the entire
program; supervises trainees
during patient-care activities,
mentors trainees’
research/projects, provides
professional training, tutorials
(lectures and seminars);
monitors duty hour compliance;
coordinates evaluation of
courses, rotations, trainees and
faculty.
Common PIF
Selected Bibliography
– Strict limit of 10
– Strict limit only the last five years
-“Publications from the last 5
years” excludes any before
2007…
– Publications should not be “in
press” if submitted many years
ago….
– Submitted doesn’t equal a
“Publication”
If not ABMS certified, explain…
Common PIF - 7
Common PIF - 8
Common PIF
Number of ACGME Approved
Positions
– Note: If you have a resident
making up a maternity leave, you
must ask ACGME for an extra
slot if you are over your cap
Actively enrolled residents
– Other than interns, everyone
should have prior years of GME
Common PIF - 9
Common PIF-10
Common PIF
Transferred, Withdrawn or
Dismissed Residents
– Residents who resign are NOT
dismissed
– Must have summative
evaluations on transferred
trainees
Evaluations
– Yes residents are evaluated
following each learning
experience (ie. rotation)
– Yes- evaluations are
documented and state how
Electronically
Files
Common PIF
Methods of Evaluation
– Assessment Method
Direct Observation
Simulation
OSCE
Etc
– Evaluator
Faculty
Nurses
Program Director
360 (required as of 2007)
Common PIF -11
Common PIF
Evaluation
Describe how evaluators are
educated to use the assessment
methods listed above so that
residents are evaluated fairly and
consistently.
– The Program Director meets with
evaluators annually before new fellows
start in the training program and
reviews, answers questions and
discusses the core competencies and
core competency performance
evaluations used in the program and
assessment methods with the faculty.
The electronic assessment system and
the scales and their use is also
reviewed and discussed in faculty
meetings in order to ensure that faculty
are fully educated and up to date with
the assessment methods and
processes.
Common PIF
Evaluation
Describe how residents are informed of
the performance criteria on which they
will be evaluated.
– At the beginning of each academic year, the
Program Director conducts an orientation to
address several key issues related to the
residency including the performance criteria on
which the residents will be evaluated. During
this orientation session, the Program Director
carefully details the specific evaluation methods
to be used. Both the criteria and methods are
also documented in the residency handbook.
Additionally, at the beginning of each block
rotation, the rotation director meets with the
resident and carefully delineates the
expectations and performance criteria on which
the resident will be evaluated for that specific
rotation.
Common PIF
Evaluation
Describe the system to ensure that
faculty complete written
evaluations of residents in a timely
manner following each rotation or
educational experience.
– At the end of each block rotation, our
online resident data collection and
tracking system, <our residency
management system>, sends an
automated reminder to the service
attending(s) to evaluate the resident(s) on
that particular rotation. Using <the
system> the Program Coordinator tracks
pending evaluations and follows up with
faculty as needed to urge them to
complete their evaluations on time. In the
unlikely event that a faculty member is
unresponsive to the coordinator's
requests to complete evaluations, the
Program Director contacts the faculty
member and requests him/her to
complete the evaluations.
Common PIF
Evaluation
Describe the process used to complete
and document written semiannual
resident evaluations, including the
mechanism for reviewing results (e.g.,
who meets with the residents and how
the results are documented in resident
files).
– Residence performance is evaluated by the
teaching faculty at the conclusion of each rotation
using an electronic evaluation form <the system>.
Additionally, each faculty mentor meets with their
resident advisee quarterly and documents a
summary of the meeting to be placed in the
resident’s file. The Program Director meets with
each resident on an individual basis semiannually
to review the accumulated performance
evaluations and mentor notes, provide feedback,
and update the resident’s learning plan as
appropriate. A summary of these meetings is
documented and placed in the resident’s file. The
residents are free to review the contents of their
records at any time.
Common PIF
Evaluation
Describe the system used by the
residents to provide annual confidential
written evaluations of the teaching
faculty (have examples and forms
available for review by site visitor).
– Residents annually confidentially evaluate the
teaching faculty using <system>. The
electronically submitted <system>. evaluation
forms are anonymous. Paper copies of completed
evaluations without personal identifiers are printed
by the Program Coordinator, reviewed by the
Program Director, and presented to individual
faculty members for review and consideration.
– Written evaluations are completed electronically
and anonymously by using a centralized system
used throughout the hospital to provide annual
aggregated data. Fellows are sent e-mail
reminders about completing evaluations in a
timely manner by the Fellowship Coordinator.
The program coordinator follows up, aggregates
the results and forwards them to the Program
Director. The Program Director reviews the
results and takes any actions appropriate with
individual program faculty.
Common PIF
Evaluation
Describe the program's (or Department's,
if applicable) system for evaluating and
providing feedback to the teaching
faculty.
– Residents annually evaluate the teaching faculty
using the <system>. The electronically submitted
evaluation forms are anonymous. Paper copies of
completed evaluations without personal identifiers
are printed by the Program Coordinator, reviewed
by the Program Director, and presented to
individual faculty members for review and
consideration. If and when the evaluations reveal
particular issues with the teaching faculty, the
Program Director meets with the particular faculty
more urgently to address those issues and
concerns. Additionally, the Program Director
meets with the all faculty on an annual basis to
review resident feedback and to effect any
necessary changes.
Common PIF
Program Evaluation
Describe the approach used for program
evaluation.
– Residents and faculty annually evaluate the
program using the <system>. The
electronically submitted evaluation forms are
anonymous. Residents and faculty are also
encouraged to provide feedback to the
Program Director whenever any issue arises
or as they see opportunities for improvement.
Additionally, residents and faculty participate
in an Annual Program Improvement Meeting
led by the Program Director. Aggregated data
including the most recent ACGME survey
results and the resident/faculty program
evaluation results are reviewed and used at
this meeting to improve the program. The
Program Coordinator keeps minutes during
this annual meeting and documents any plans
to address areas requiring improvement.
Action plan progress is monitored and
documented by the Program Director.
Common PIF
Program Evaluation
Describe one example how the program
used the aggregated results of residents'
performance and/or other program
evaluation results to improve the
program (have the written plan of action
available for review by the site visitor).
– Annual fellowship retreats including
fellows and faculty are conducted each
year in May or June (Whenever yours is
held) ….the agenda for these meetings
includes review of all the aforementioned
aggregated data as well an open
discussion about educational quality and
compliance with the program
requirements and suggestions for
improving the program for incoming
residents. (See GME Website for more
information on this and examples of
written action plans)
– http://med.stanford.edu/gme/progra
m_directors/eval_prog.html
Common PIF -12
Common PIF
Describe the improvement
efforts currently undertaken
based on feedback from the
ACGME Resident Survey.
– You MUST review your ACGME
Annual Survey each year, bring
the results to your Annual
Program Retreat, address each
area of concern (more than 20%)
or any Duty Hour negative
response
Common PIF
DUTY HOURS
– Use the summary from your
tracking system reporting
function
– Describe
Common PIF
Briefly describe how the
faculty provides appropriate
supervision of residents in
patient care activities.
– Faculty discusses all patient care
history and physical findings with
resident. Faculty then confirms
both the history and physical
findings of the patient. The
patient is then discussed in
detail, education given regarding
the patient illness or complaint,
education materials are provided
to the resident and finally, a care
plan is developed and provided
by the resident and confirmed by
the faculty.
Common PIF
Other Questions that may be
included in you Common or
Specialty PIF
Other PIF Questions
Skills and Competencies
– Describe how residents are
informed about their
assignments and duties during
the residency.
This should be in writing and verbal.
For example, all fellows are given
the program training manual which
describes their assignments and
duties during orientation to the
program. Each fellow signs an
attestation that they have received
and read the manual. The manual is
discussed during orientation with
the fellows as a group.
Just Answer the
Question!
Describe how fellows are informed about their
assignments and duties during the fellowship.
Fellows are informed about their assignments at the
beginning of the fellowship.
Handouts are provided which describe the goals and
objectives for each rotation, as well as a reading list of
recommended articles. fellows are informed about their
assignments at the beginning of the fellowship.
Handouts are provided which describe the goals
and objectives for each rotation, as well as a reading
list of recommended articles.
The Six Core competencies for each rotation include
1. Patient Care
2. Medical Knowledge
3. Practice-based learning & improvement,
4. Interpersonal & Communication Skills
5. Professionalism
6. Systems-based Practices
Competencies differ for each rotation and will be
provided.
Other PIF Questions
GENERALIZEGrievance Procedures
– Describe how the program
handles complaints or
concerns the residents raise.
The program follows the Dispute
Resolution (grievance ) procedures
described in the Stanford University
Medical Center House Staff Policies
& Procedures, pages 20-24,
distributed to residents at the
beginning of their residency and
available on the GME website
Other PIF Questions
Describe how the program monitors for excessive
service and modifies the program accordingly.
– The residency has several methods to monitor for
excessive service and modify the program if required:
Formal rotation evaluations with alerts:
Residents complete monthly evaluations using
the system that are reviewed and
communicated with the rotation directors.
Committee on Residency Training and Clinical
Services: Each class has resident
representatives meet with the Program Director
monthly for a formal agenda to review and
address issues in the residency program.
The rotation directors are sent the residents’
monthly feedback on a quarterly basis (to
ensure confidentiality for the residents’
feedback)
Yearly, the residents have a retreat in which
each aspect of the program is reviewed. Area of
concern are brought back to the Committee on
Residency Training. The ACGME and GME
resident survey questions with respect to
excessive service are reviewed.
Informal feedback: the residents are
encouraged to let the Chief Residents, the
Faculty, and the Program Director know
immediately when either the service load or the
educational activities are compromised.
Weekly meetings of the program director and
chief residents to discuss the residents and
experiences on individual rotations.
Computerized entry and monitoring of all hours
is performed in <the system>.
Duty Hours
Duty Hours
Duty Hours
“Other”
SPECIALTY PIF
The specialty specific PIF is located
on the ACGME website under your
Residency Review Committee.
– http://acgme.org/acWebsite/navPages/
nav_PDcoord.asp
The specialty PIF contains the
questions regarding the ACGME
core competencies, block diagrams
for your program, a narrative
description of the program,
scholarly activity, and often case
logs.
Specialty PIF-PracticeBased Learning &
Improvement
Describe one learning activity in
which residents engage to identify
strengths, deficiencies, and limits
in their knowledge and expertise
(self-reflection and selfassessment); set learning and
improvement goals; identify and
perform appropriate learning
activities to achieve self-identified
goals (life-long learning).
– Programs may use a structured process
for reflection in which a faculty advisor
guides the resident in using feedback
and evaluations to inform the self
assessment process. Documentation of
the semi-annual evaluation meetings in
which this process is demonstrated
would provide evidence that this
requirement is being addressed.
Specialty PIF-PracticeBased Learning &
Improvement
Describe one example of a learning
activity in which residents engage to
develop the skills needed to use
information technology to locate,
appraise, and assimilate evidence from
scientific studies and apply it to their
patients’ health problems. The
description should include: a) locating
information, b) using information
technology, c) appraising information, d)
assimilating evidence information (from
scientific studies), e) applying
information to patient care.
– An appropriate learning activity could be a
structured activity such as a journal club
presentation, critical appraisal of a topic, or
educational prescription with appropriate faculty
oversight and formal assessment of skills.
Additional documentation would be the written
goals and objectives for this learning activity and
how residents are assessed.
Specialty PIFProfessionalism
Describe at least one learning
activity, other than lecture, by
which residents develop a
commitment to carrying out
professional responsibilities and
an adherence to ethical
principles.
– This activity should be structured,
should demonstrate active faculty
involvement (not just passive role
modeling) and timely feedback to
residents, and should include a
mechanism for collecting evaluations
(including routine multi-source
assessment).
Specialty SystemsBased Practice
Describe an activity that fulfills the
requirement for experiential
learning in identifying system
errors.
– Important elements may include identified
faculty to guide the activity, mechanism to
ensure active engagement by each
resident, and evidence of experiential
learning (not just passive presence at
conferences and meetings) in which
residents participate in identifying a
system problem or error and contribute to
a potential solution.
– Additional documentation could include
written goals and objectives for this
learning activity and how residents are
assessed. Aggregated resident outcomes
may be in the form of percentage of
residents that completed a patient safety
or other Systems-Based Practice project
by the end of training, annual list of
improvements that resulted from such
projects, etc.
PIF
Briefly describe how the faculty
provides appropriate supervision
of residents in patient care
activities.
Remember the new 2011 new
supervision guidelines as you
answer this question.
Table of Contents
Common Errors
Table of Contents Inaccurate
Pages not numbered or not
numbered correctly
Document not spell-checked
Question asked not answered
Statistics not added correctly
% of time for faculty
inconsistent within the PIF
Type font does not match
Putting It All Together
REVISE---One complete PIF (common
and specialty) is due to the site visitor at
least 14 days before the site visit.
For example, Stanford’s GME needs the
complete PIF 14-30 days before it is send
to the site visitor. (the math means that
the program should have the completed
document ready 6 weeks BEFORE your
site visit)
Many large institutions have 3 site visits
during a week. This translates to 3 PIFS
to review. Help the poor folks out….and
be EARLY!!!!
The more time you give GME…the more
time for editing, comments, and changes.
You really cannot have too many eyes
look at one PIF!!
Save time in the PIF
Site Visit/Internal
Review Process
Leverage Inexpensive
Technology Applications e.g.,
– PDF – PIF Review Functionality
– PDF – i-annotate or similar
– Microsoft Word Track Changes
Documents revisions that are required
Electronic copies can easily be
uploaded to internal web sites for easy
access and documentation
Enables team reviews – from
“anywhere”
Provides Program Directors easy
review of recommendations
Provides Program Coordinators a
streamlined way to make many of the
required changes
The Land Mines
As you write your PIF…
remember to read each
question carefully.
– One example does NOT mean
several
– “How” does not mean “we do”
– No “will’s”
– No “see attached – “see below”
And now we are
going “PIF-less”
A new process
Somewhat scary
– The unknown makes us anxious
So this is the Stanford
experience from an ACGME
pilot of three programs that had
PIF-less reviews
Documents We Had to
Have
Ready for the PIF-Less
Site Visit
Common Program and
Institutional Requirements
– Policies and procedures for
residents’ duty hours and work
environment (institutional and
program)
– Moonlighting policy
– Documentation of internal
review (date, participants’ titles,
type of date collected, and date
of review by GMEC)
Documents We Had to
Have Ready for the PIF-Less
Site Visit
Common Program Requirements
Overall educational goals for the program
Competency-based goals and objectives for
each experience at each educational level
Current Program Letters of Agreement (PLAs)
Files of current residents and most recent
program graduates containing the following:
– Evaluations of residents at the completion of
each assignment
– Evaluations showing use of multiple evaluators
(e.g., faculty, peers, other professional staff,
patients, and self-evaluation)
– Documentation of residents’ semiannual
evaluations of performance with feedback
– Final (summative) evaluation of residents,
documenting performance during the final period
of education and verifying that the resident has
demonstrated sufficient competence to enter
practice without supervision …..cont’d
Documents We Had to
Have Ready for the PIF-less Site Visit
Completed annual written confidential evaluations of
faculty by the residents
Completed annual written confidential evaluations of the
program by the residents
Completed annual written confidential evaluations of the
program by the faculty
Documentation of program evaluation and written
improvement plan
Documentation of resident duty hours
If applicable, files of current residents who have
transferred into the program including documentation of
previous experiences and competency-based
performance evaluations.
If applicable, files of residents who have transferred out of
this program into another program, including
documentation of experiences and summative
competency-based performance evaluations provided to
the receiving program director
Policy for recruitment, appointment, eligibility, selection,
and promotion of residents
Documents to Have Ready for
the PIF-Less Site Visit
New 2011 Common Standards
Transfer protocol handover/transfer and sample educational
materials related to handovers/ transfers
Sample schedules that inform all members of the health care
team of attending physicians and residents currently
responsible for each patient’s care
Document review of policies for supervision and lines of
supervisory responsibility Protocols defining common
circumstances requiring faculty involvement (care of a
complex patient, ICU transfer, DNR or other end of life
decision (by year/level of training)
Protocol and (completed) sample documents for episodes
when residents remain on duty beyond scheduled hours
Policies to ensure that residents have adequate rest
between daily duty periods and after in-house call
(showing differences by level/year of training)
Sample documents offering evidence of resident
participation in QI and Safety Projects
Documents to Have
Ready for the
PIF-less Site Visit
New 2011 Common Standards
Added documents for some programs
(Site Visitor will clarify)
– Review of Case/Procedure logs, if
specified in the program requirements
– Documentation of conference
attendance, if required by the Review
Committee
– If available, examples of resident
involvement in quality
– Any additional materials relevant to
the review in the specialty (Site
Visitor will specify)
And now we are
going “PIF- less”
Lessons learned from a pilot of
the first “PIF-less” in August
2011
– Details!
– Attention to organization
– Team work
– Time management
And now we are
going “PIF-less”
We had all of the required
elements loaded into our
residency management system
– Paperless
– 3 programs
– Site visitors “driving” the data
collection by the 2nd day
– And it was truly a great
experience for ALL!!!!!
PIFmanship 101
And that’s all folks…
Stay tuned for PIF-lessmanship 102 next year!