there might be some simple markers for an ebm course
pre-course reading materials (not a list)
group work
self directed
starting with question design
based on clinical problems
brought to the workshop by participants
with integration of librarians to teach about effective searching
mention of JAMA guidelines for appraisal
mention of numerate teaching resources (not necessarily statisticians) at the
workshop for LR and NNT and other issues
names and pedigrees of course facilitators
minimal (if any) plenary or didactic teaching
facilitator support structure
post workshop follow-up structure
martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Flynn [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 June 1999 21:34
To: Evidence-based-health
Subject: Re: EB-CME marketing?
Accreditation is an incredibly time-consuming procedure and requires its own
quality assurance system to ensure it serves its purpose. It is kind of
flattering to EBM that its "brand name" is being copied by those running CME
courses. Don't forget that you can make more from a badly-run CME course
than bootlegged Levis or Rolexes.
EBM practitioners should try to promote a few simple criteria to as wide an
audience as possible so that anyone can differentiate what is EBM and what
is not.
Dr. Paul M. Flynn MB,BCh,BAO,MRCOG
164 Oxford Road, Middlesbrough, TS5 5EJ, UK
Tel: (01642) 804509 Fax: (01642) 804510
Mobile: (0468) 956504
-----Original Message-----
From: Katherine Schneider, MD <[log in to unmask]>
To: Evidence-based-health <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 09 June 1999 21:38
Subject: EB-CME marketing?
>Dear all,
>
>I was reminded of this by the posting on the EB-Oncology conference -- and
>I know nothing about that particular meeting so please don't take this as
>directed towards it.
>
>My hospital recently consulted me about the advisability of sending one
>member of each Obstetrics group to a nearby day-long conference entitled
>"Evidence-Based Obstetrics" sponsored by a nearby medical center which
>does a large volume of CME. I looked at the program and the topics
>looked like ones that would lend themselves well to EBM-type discussions.
>
>The actual content turned out to be very disappointing, and probably did
>significant HARM in terms of promoting EBM approaches among our OB's, one
>of whom told me once that "EBM cannot be done in OB because the only
>outcomes are a dead baby or a dead mother". Essentially, most
>presentations were the same old "review of the literature" by an expert
>repackaged as "EBM". I think the word "meta-analysis" was mentioned
>once. Likelihood ratio was mentioned once in the context of promoting a
>new test, though nobody explained what a LR is. There was a brief
>introduction on the definition of EBM by a perinatologist who clearly had
>limited familiarity with EBM and focused on its limitations. The most
>appropriate and stimulating discussion (I thought) was by a general
>surgeon talking about the quantitative risks and benefits of treating
>gallbladder disease in pregnancy. I rolled my eyes to the point of
>vertigo at the number of times the speakers said, "Well, the
>evidence says do this, but in reality I do that". Anything even
>approaching the concept of NNT, or the Cochrane Database -- forget
>it!
>
>I'm concerned about the proliferation of "EB-CME" courses, and how we
>"local experts" can help our colleagues pick out the ones that are truly
>based upon principles of EBM/EBHC, versus those that throw the phrase
>into the title in order to market the program. Should we
>internationally trademark the phrase and accredit CME courses that wish to
>promote themselves as evidence-based? (Only 95% joking on that one).
>
>I'd be curious to hear others' experiences. I feel that I got a bit
>burned on this one, and I'm certainly going to be extremely careful in
>the future in endorsing anything as evidence-based until I know the
>details. Sorry for the long venting message!
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|