Upload
derek-dietze
View
415
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
An update on sharing educational outcomes measurement results within the CME community
Citation preview
1
SHARING CME OUTCOMES—How to Overcome Internal and External
Challenges for Posting Medical Education Outcomes
Derek T. Dietze, MA, CCMEPPresident, Improve CME, LLC
2
Agenda
• A brief history of sharing• Current status of sharing• Barriers to sharing• Sharing in other industries• Benefits of sharing• How and where to share—practical
strategies• A call to action
3
• Mark Dimor, The BioContinuum Group– Idea in 2006: described an approach to
the open sharing of information within the CME community
– April 2007—NAEOMI concept created and shared with CME community leaders
– Result: Great idea, not viable
4
“We need to share!”
• Robert D. Fox, EdD, Professor of Adult and Higher Education, College of Education, University of Oklahoma
• AMA Task Force on CME Provider/Industry Collaboration Meeting October 17, 2007
• Very positive response by CME stakeholders at the conference
5
• Survey of CME stakeholders the following week thru Alliance for CME and NAAMECC list servs
• Results published in CE Measure: Transparency and Open Sharing of CME Needs Assessment and Outcomes Information: Building Communities of Practice and Improving Patient Care
NAEOMI Survey
Source: www.cemeasure.com/media/journal/2-1/007-011.07-106.Dimor.pdf
6
Survey Results (n=66)
• 38%: Sharing is a viable concept• 52%: It might work• 89% said their organization would (32%)
or might (58%) be willing to submit info.• Concerns: funding, cost to users, loss of
competitive advantage, proprietary nature of info, fear of industry control of system
• Benefits: aid planning process, help to those with fewer resources, facilitates professional development of CME staff
7
• Concept developed by Outcomes Inc., now under Alliance for CME direction
• Website: www.cmexchange.org launched April 2008
• An open access resource for CME assessment tools and data
• Currently 7 reports listed there• Will list validated question types
8
• Not-for-profit, international group of medical associations, universities, commercial, & governmental organizations
• Metrics Working Group finalized Medical Education Metrics (MEMS) specifications in August 2009
• Objective: provide a consistent format and data structure for representing metrics for health professions education, particularly CE activities.
www.medbiquitous.org
9
• CoRP (Community of Research Practice) started in Fall 2007
• February 2008—15 individuals• Objectives: Produce systematic reviews
related to CME/CDP, and dissemination through publication, presentation, and open-access initiatives, share learning experiences
10
Where Sharing Happens• Alliance for CME– Conferences/Almanac/CMExchange
• JCEHP (The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions)
• CE Measure (www.cemeasure.org)• SACME conferences• Medical Meetings Magazine• Medical Journals, Association Meetings• BMC Medical Education—Open Access
Journal• NIQIE (National Institute for Quality
Improvement and Education)--COP
11
Do we have an obligation to
make outcomes results
“public”?
12
Who should be sharing results?
13
What if we had been sharing?
14
“Are the drug and device industries getting a return on their annual billion dollar investment in medical education?”Senator Herb Kohl, July 29, 2009
Source: http://aging.senate.gov/hearing_detail.cfm?id=316395&
15
Would you have more or better data to internally justify and optimize your spend on CME?
Physician Performanc
e
16
Would we have more effective CME interventions to bridge the gaps?
17
Barriers to Sharing• Quality and variability of information
submitted• Shrinking grant support• Lack of resources and competence
to produce reports• Increased administrative burdens
(ACCME)• Relentless regulatory scrutiny• Risks for commercial supporters
18
Barriers to Sharing (cont.)
• Money to start/maintain a system, and for users
• Lack of information/data to share?• Lack of motivation for providers to
share• The proprietary nature of the
information• Loss of competitive advantage to
seek/obtain grant support
19
Grants and
Profits
Improving Performance
& Patient Outcomes
HOW OTHER INDUSTRIES SHAREIndependent Project Analysis,
Inc.International Benchmarking
ConsortiumGoal: Improve Effectiveness of Capital Project Systems (large
building projects)
Why the International Benchmarking Consortium (IBC)?
The Need:• Significant failures in the majority of
capital projects across all industries (private & public)
• Industry demand for capturing and sharing of learnings from failures
Source: www.ipaglobal.com
22
Charter: A Commitment to Share and Improve
• Voluntary association of firms (some are competitors) that use similar measurement/project tracking techniques
• They share data, information, and tools for improved effectiveness and improved global competitiveness
Benefits
• Participating companies can compare their performance against other companies’ performance
• Highlights Best Practices and reinforces their use to improve capital project effectiveness
• One-on-one discussions and workshops enable establishment of business networks
How does it work?
• Charter/Code of Conduct signed• Companies pay annual fee (conference
registration for 6 people)• Annual conferences• Presentations from participant
companies• Metrics and research on specific topics
from IPA• Sub-committees meet at separate times
25
Medical Journals and NIH
• A number of medical journals, professional societies and privately funded consortiums now require some degree of data sharing as a condition of publication or participation, and the NIH has adopted rules requiring grant recipients to sign an agreement to share data.
• Grant recipients of $500,000 or more per year must now provide a “data-sharing plan” in their grant application, but the rules allow significant leeway on what can be kept private.
Source: http://annalsofneurology.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/data-sharing-making-headway-in-a-competitive-research-milieu/
27
www.piaa.us/AM/ContentManagerNet/HTMLDisplay.aspx?ContentID=5032&Section=Data_Sharing_Project
28
• 50 member local governments that participate across 12 local government service areas
• A combined total of over 300 performance measures that have been dynamically crafted, massaged and managed by service area experts from the many industries of Florida's local governments.
• $1,000/year, meetings in Spring and Fall
29
Benefits of Sharing in CME
• Accelerated opportunity for a variety of improvements across the CME community
• Establishment of best practices• Validation of effective methods, ability
to better address flawed methods• More efficient use of CME funds• Greater efficiency in conducting needs
assessments/gap analyses
30
Benefits of Sharing in CME (cont.)
• Identification of best performers• More available evidence of positive
impact of CME • Build trust through transparency• Better demonstrate the value of CME
as a strategic asset for improving performance and enhancing patient outcomes
• Self-regulation
31
Where and How Do You Share?
• Alliance for CME– Conferences/Almanac/CMExchange
• JCEHP (The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions)
• CE Measure (www.cemeasure.org)• SACME conferences• Medical Meetings Magazine• Medical Journals, Association Meetings• BMC Medical Education—Open Access
Journal• NIQIE (National Institute for Quality
Improvement and Education)--COP
32
CME should be a strategic asset for improving performance and enhancing patient outcomes.
CME in the public interest.
33
Measure and Share to Improve!