CME Spotlight: medical communications evolves
pharmafile | December 2, 2010 | Feature | Medical Communications |Â Â CME, CME Spotlight, Continuing medical education, Eugene PozniakÂ
I recently attended the first meeting of the MedComms Forum in Oxford. The venue of the Natural History Museum was highly appropriate for a meeting that focused on the evolution and future development of the medical communications industry.
The attendees, from across the medical communications and pharmaceutical industries, enjoyed lively debate about a range of subjects such as transparency in publication planning, the role of social media and, of course, CME.
It could be seen as a positive start made by the MedComms Forum in bringing competitors and collaborators together. Another excellent meeting I went to, was the first meeting of the HCA which, while it addressed the needs of medical ‘communicators’ – was clearly in the realm of promotional ‘education’ primarily under the rules of the ABPI, therefore what in CME parlance would be seen as promotion.
Increasing CME agenda
CME was one of the four main topics at the MedComms Forum meeting. Only a couple of years ago CME would not have made it onto an agenda such as this, having been perceived as a fringe activity for industry.
Today, with the advent of CME/CPD requirements across Europe, the increasing expectations from approval bodies for pharma to educate more rather than just promote, and the growing clarity around the expectations of accrediting bodies for the need for high quality – independently developed – materials appears to be growing. Hence, the interest from the various businesses that comprise the medical communications industry and, let’s not forget, from the pharmaceutical industry as potential providers of funding.
The debate highlighted a number of important issues for the CME fraternity and medical communications industry to consider:
• There is still a great deal that is unclear regarding the future development of CME programmes. Topics such as the differing and evolving rules of accrediting bodies, the role of outcomes, definitions of conflict of interest and transparency and whether single sponsor programmes are appropriate were discussed in this regard. This lack of clarity makes potential sponsors uncertain about the value of providing financial support.
• The question of the separate development of promotional and independent programmes was discussed. Some members of the audience suggested that an organisation that developed promotional programmes (defined as those programmes that the pharmaceutical company reviews and provides direction on) could not create independent programmes. Clearly, this is an extreme view and does not reflect current practice, nor current rules and guidance and is unlikely, in my view, ever to be the case. Nevertheless, the discussion was useful as it raised the point once again that the CME fraternity needs to focus on what is possible and can be done, and not merely on what cannot be done.
• During a discussion on the need to measure the impact of educational programmes – the ‘Outcomes’ discussion – I was surprised at the focus the audience had on high levels of outcomes, such as improvements in patient health or quality of life.
Why am I surprised? Because the audience, in everything it has historically done such as advertising, symposia and publications has never seen the need, or advocated for, such a high level of outcomes. Has any ad agency tried to assess the number of prescriptions written and the ensuing patient benefit from a single press ad?
Has a medical communications company assessed the number of new prescriptions and patient benefits from one publication or satellite symposium?
Indeed, I have written previously about a satellite symposium where had it not been CME accredited I doubt that the supporting company would have had an inkling that over 25% of the audience was made up of employees of competitor companies.
Which other educational activities are there such high demands made on outcomes measurements? One member of the audience argued that the most important issues were transparency and quality, and the issue of independent development was secondary.
So, why the big difference on outcomes? I really don’t know. One thing I am sure about is that we need to keep the outcomes discussion in a reasonable perspective and not jump to conclusions that are inappropriate.
Med comms and pharma CME
The meeting also looked at the role of the existing medical communications industry and the pharmaceutical industry when it came to CME. It was understood that clear guidance, rules and regulation are needed to help create a robust and healthy CME industry, but it was felt that there are many areas for confusion.
Indeed, for me, the underlying message of the discussion around CME was that multiple stakeholders need to be involved to develop a well thought out and robust mechanism for developing CME in Europe to support the existing mechanisms that are in place, for example as managed by the medical societies.
Groups such as the European CME Forum, the Good CME Practice Group and the emerging pharma company CME group – which I hope will have success at their meeting as this article goes to press – are making headway in this respect.
The MedComms Forum marked another important step in bringing interested parties together to discuss important issues, across all key topics in our changing environment and not just CME.
I sincerely hope that the medical communications industry will view this meeting as the first of many and perhaps as a beginning of the development of a visible and coherent voice, and to gaining a more prominent place at the table during discussions about the many important topics affecting industry.
No doubt the development of CME will benefit, and way beyond CME, the whole industry will finally have a point of view on the issues affecting its evolution.
As the fossils and stuffed animals in the halls of the Natural History Museum demonstrate – continued existence is not a given, and a robust and strong voice in our own development is a prerequisite for future survival and prosperity.
Eugene Pozniak is managing director of Siyemi Learning and programme director of European CME Forum. Email: epozniak@siyemi.org
Information about the Good CME Practice Group can be found at www.gCMEp.eu
Related Content
AZ launches US digital tool ‘DoctorsNotes’ in US
AstraZeneca has launched a new online tool in the US called DoctorsNotes to help medical …
Lucid opens second office
UK medical education firm Lucid has opened a second office in Hammersmith, London. In addition to …
Doctors, medical education and pharma – the way ahead
InPharm CME event Roy Pounder, Andrew Powrie-Smith, Richard Marchant, Roy Lilley, Kieran Walsh and Chuka …
