Sharing Cme Outcomes Dietze Cbi 8.17.09

1

SHARING CME OUTCOMES—How to Overcome Internal and External

Challenges for Posting Medical Education Outcomes

Derek T. Dietze, MA, CCMEPPresident, Improve CME, LLC

[email protected]

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/

26

www.myelinrepair.org/

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!

34

Will you share?

Derek T. Dietze, MA, CCMEPPresident, Improve CME, LLC

[email protected]