This may sound like a no-brainer, but it’s really not: Are you trying to disseminate information, or provide education, through your activities? Check out this post by Jeff Hurt. I was reminded of one of the final sessions at GAME on Tuesday, when Suzanne Murray, president of the Axdev Group broke us down into small groups to discuss our own experiences with international collaborative projects. Several people at the end said they really appreciated the chance to talk amongst themselves, and felt it was one of the best learning experiences of the conference (the rest was pretty much all lecture with Q&A).

Classic CME has mainly been lecture-based, which means it has mainly been for the dissemination of information. And that’s just fine if that’s what you want to do — to be sure, there’s more than enough info that needs to get put out there. But if you want to take it to the level of education as Jeff describes it, “leading others to bring out the potential from within” or move higher up on Moore’s seven-level outcomes pyramid, activities are going to have to make some changes in format. And there will be resistance, because we are conditioned (docs more than most, perhaps) to be information gatherers, not learners, which take more effort as well as more involvement.

Anyway, I thought you might want to check out his post.

Every time I heard the latest CEJA report mentioned at the GAME meeting this week in Montreal, it was accompanied by head shakes and groans. And of course, Dr. Stossel practically snorted in disgust at the thought of the most recent iteration, and much of his GAME keynote echoed the points outlined in the Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators response to the CEJA report, which I just stumbled upon in the Policy and Medicine blog.

I’d be curious to see what supporters have to say. I haven’t run across any lately, but I’m sure they’re out there.

The more I hear about this year’s ASCO conference, the more interesting it sounds (”interesting” as in the old curse, “may you live in interesting times”). Just came across this: Free latte for oncologists? Not without disclosure. Seems that docs have to swipe their IDs before grabbing a coffee on the show floor, and if they’re from Minnesota or Massachusetts, fuggedaboudit.

I remember hearing something similar at the Pharmaceutical Meeting Management Forum, where several pharma planners said that they carded docs at the food lines at their physician meetings, and had to refuse serving them if they were from a super-strict state. I’ll echo this from the Reuters article: “This is getting to the point of absurdity … Is this the way we are going to solve the issue of healthcare in this country?”–Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society.

While I have a few minutes during the morning break, I’ll try to catch up just a bit.

Thomas Stossel, MD, with Harvard Medical School, was a very intriguing and thought-provoking, not to mention passionate, opening keynoter on Sunday night. He talked about a lot of the same things he has in published articles and his testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Aging last summer, but I didn’t expect him to be as funny as he was.

Anyway, the main theme of his talk can be summed up with this quote: “Industry contributions are now dominant and alleged to be tainted. Truth is that it is tainted–taint enough.” (Yeah, it took us all a second to get it, too.) He cited all the medical advances that have come about since he first became a doctor, and how industry collaboration with practitioners resulted in those life-saving innovations. He then contrasted that list with the shorter list of violations that have occurred, and pointed out that, while pharma and device companies usually settle to avoid debarment from doing business with the government, many of the individuals involved in the violations fought back and won their cases. He also posits that the allegations were not evidence-based.

He contends that COI is meaningless, because interests are never perfectly aligned (except in anthills), and that conflict allegations have led to what he called the “toxic policies” of the ACCME, IOM, etc. (He was particularly harsh about ACCME.)

These policies, he said, are toxic because:

1. They entail a massive confession of all connections with industry.

2. They inhibit freedom of speech.

3. They inhibit the freedom to be rewarded based on excellence.

He said the cost of these policies includes impaired risk-taking and reduced investment in innovation, less, and less diversified, training and education; empowerment of second-hand expertise for education; and wasteful diversion of time and resources to disclosure and compliance.

The upshot, he said, was the idea that “doctors should be educated in a monastery wearing a hair shirt that they paid for themselves, instead of how all other professions are educated.”

Some favorite quotes:

“Remember that the death rate is one per person.”

“Research is not innovation. Innovation requires research and implementation.”

“It isn’t money that’s bad for medicine, it’s the lack of money.”

This is just a little piece of what he had to say, but the next session is starting. Anyway, agree or disagree (I found myself doing both), his was a fascinating diatribe, and an energetic way to open the meeting.

Sorry for not having posted about the GAME meeting — been nonstop since I got here. Here’s a brief look at what’s going on via Twitter:

Arrived in Montreal late this afternoon a bit bedraggled from the six-hour ride through torrential rains, but it’s worth it to be here for my very first Global Alliance for Medical Education conference. At least, I think it will be, given the agenda. First up tonight is a keynote by Thomas Stossel, MD. I’m guessing it’ll be along the lines of his recent article in the Boston Review, but it’ll be interesting to hear nonetheless.

I love the title of his talk: Money in Healthcare: Sin or Salvation?

For those who want to follow the meeting via Twitter, the hashtag is #game2010. Depending on the WiFi availability, I hope to tweet as well as blog, but we’ll see how that goes.