Just saw this notice in the latest NIQIE e-newsletter and thought I’d spread the word:

The Certificate in Continuous Performance Improvement Program sponsored by NIQIE and the Jefferson School of Population Health (JSPH) will officially launch with the first three modules presented in a four-hour live workshop format Sunday, February 28, 2010, 1-5 p.m. at the Philadelphia Marriott. The workshop is scheduled immediately prior to Jefferson’s annual Population Health and Disease Management Colloquium. More info here.

I came across the term “medical ventriloquism” while reading this article in The New York Times on pharma’s role in the evolution in the treatment of menopause, and it is I think the best way I’ve heard yet to communicate in short-hand the argument that pharma gets its marketing message out indirectly through word of mouth, KOLs, scientific journals, and CME.

I had to cut this from the December Medical Meetings cover story on continuous performance improvement, but I think it’s important to talk about. Because I was pretty sure it wasn’t going to make it into the issue, I didn’t call any medical education companies to get that side of the issue, but I’d like to invite MECCs or anyone else, for that matter, to chime in here or via e-mail.

Here’s the cut item:

Many medical education and communication companies have expressed that the continuous performance improvement model is a poor fit for them, because they’re not intimately aligned with the organization they’re working with and so may not have access to the quality improvement data and people they’d need to collaborate with to design effective CME.

Donald Moore, PhD, Director, Division of CME, Director of Education and Evaluation, Graduate Medical Education, Faculty Associate, Office of Teaching and Learning in Medicine, Professor of Medical Education and Administration, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, says that doesn’t have to be the case. “It’s the old question of what business you are in. Instead of providing the kind of support they’ve been providing to pharma, they could switch their business model to become a performance-improvement-oriented organization that provides a service to hospitals and health systems.”

While he acknowledges that it might be a tough switch to make, at least initially, “If I were the president of a MECC, I’d be seeing all kinds of opportunity.” For example, he says, “If a MECC came to me today and said we can work with you to develop five 10-minutes spots on specific information on diabetes, I’d be all ears. That’s something we need: something that’s online and interactive and to-the-point, that can address specific improvement issues” that skips all the background and research and goes straight to what a physician could do to improve care for a patient whose hemoglobin A1c is higher than it should be. The only caveat is that the spots would have to be tied to evidence-based measures and improving performance in practice. MECCs would need to collaborate with those who have the practice data and evidence of practice gaps as needs assessment, says Nancy Davis, PhD, Executive Director, the National Institute for Quality Improvement and Education.

Update: I heard via e-mail that in fact some of the best PI CME programs around are being designed and implemented by MECCs, and that not being a part of the institution is no hindrance to getting the job done. My e-mailer suggested a few folks I could talk to to learn more, but if you have a good story to tell (either a success story or a challenge you face in doing PI CME), drop me a line or comment below. Thanks!

From the Globe and Mail: Medical association takes heat for Pfizer funding. Here’s the meat:

Under the new CMA initiative, Pfizer Canada said it will provide $780,000 to fund the new “continuing medical education” or CME program, designed to inform physicians of new developments in medicine and help maintain their skills. Two Pfizer staff members will also sit on an administrative board, responsible for overseeing, implementing and evaluating the program, along with two staff members from the medical association and two individuals from outside organizations.

The program will be offered online and will focus on 12 different subjects. The first, expected to be made available early next year, will focus on Parkinson’s disease. Other topics will be determined based on gaps identified by physicians in surveys posted on the CMA website.

While organizers say Pfizer won’t have any say in the content, there are detractors such as Arnold Relman, professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, who says in the article: “It’s simply a matter of common sense that if Pfizer is going to pay the Canadian Medical Association for medical education to doctors, Pfizer expects to get something in return.”