Tom,
I think this is a great idea. People often say what has not been done
before is impossible. This could go well with the all trials registered
all data reported initiative. It must be very difficult for CME bodies to
manage this because they don't always know the players and everyone who
has an interest likely has some form of stake!
Best
Amy
On 4/17/13 2:22 PM, "Tom Yates" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi Pat,
>
>I'm aware of no evidence that disclosure removes bias. My view is that
>it is best, where possible, to get people without a stake in the topic
>under discussion to summarise the evidence.
>
>My conflict of interest is that I'm trying to get an accreditation
>scheme off the ground for CME delivered independent of industry and by
>unconflicted speakers - see www.conflictfreeconferences.com.
>
>People says its not possible but there is loads of good stuff out
>there - e.g. GP Update in the UK and the Therapeutics Initiative in
>Canada.
>
>All the best,
>Tom
>
>
>On 17/04/2013, Patricia Warner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Agreed, speakers must complete disclosures of relevant financial
>>information
>> concerning biases. If there is possible biases, the CME has a policy
>> designed to deal with that. And at the end of the presentation, the
>> learners are asked whether or not they perceived any bias and if so,
>>what.
>> If the speaker did not adhere to the policy, the speaker will not ever
>>be
>> able to speak at one of our events again.
>>
>> Patricia "Pat" Warner, MLIS
>> Hospital Librarian/CME Coordinator
>> Memorial Hospital at Gulfport
>> 4500 13th St
>> PO Box 1810
>> Gulfport MS 39502
>> 228-865-3616
>> 228-865-3135 (fax)
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Evidence based health (EBH)
>>[[log in to unmask]] on
>> behalf of Makretsov, Nikita [PH] [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:19 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Evidence for learning objectives in continuing health care
>> education events
>>
>> Hello James,
>>
>> The bigger question is whether the CME is free from ANY industrial
>>bias. The
>> objectives could still be very lovely.
>>
>>
>> Nik (Nikita) A. Makretsov,
>> University of British Columbia
>> Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
>> 1081 Burrard St, Vancouver, BC, V6Z1Y6
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Evidence based health (EBH)
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McCormack,
>>James
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:43 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Evidence for learning objectives in continuing health care
>> education events
>>
>> Hello:
>>
>> Not sure if this question is appropriate for this list serve but maybe
>>the
>> answer will be interesting to some of the group.
>>
>> MY QUESTION
>> Does providing participants at continuing health care educational events
>> with a list of 2-3 objectives for each talk improve knowledge uptake or
>> provide any measurable useful outcome? Is there is any evidence that
>> participants even use them etc?
>>
>> I have had a quick look and have been unable to find any evidence but I
>>may
>> not be looking in the right places.
>>
>> BACKGROUND
>>
>> 1) I give dozens of different "evidence-based" talks a year and for
>>each one
>> of them as part of an educational accreditation process I'm "forced" to
>> create 2-3 learning objectives which need to be prominently displayed
>>on my
>> handout and presented at the beginning of my talk. While it is not a
>>huge
>> amount of work, when you have to do it dozens of times for different
>>topics
>> it is an added administrative burden especially given that I often do
>>talks
>> for no honourarium. However, if there was evidence that people really
>>used
>> them or if it improved outcomes I would have no problem doing it.
>>
>> 2) I recently asked 100's of participants at 2-3 conferences if any of
>>them
>> ever used these learning objectives and not one of them said they did.
>>Maybe
>> it was a biased sample but the lack of a yes response was deafening.
>>
>> Does anyone know of any evidence that providing objectives improves any
>> educational experience (even in a health care curriculum) or is it
>>purely a
>> philosophy whose benefit is taken for granted.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> James McCormack, BSc(Pharm), Pharm D
>> Professor
>> Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences
>> UBC, Vancouver, Canada
>>
>> therapeuticseducation.org
>>
>> 604-603-7898
>> ________________________________
>> This email may contain information covered under the Mississippi
>>Privacy Law
>> (Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-29), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a)
>> and/or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
>>(Pub.
>> L. No. 104-191) and its accompanying regulations. Healthcare
>>information is
>> personal and sensitive and must be protected in accordance with these
>> provisions. If this email contains healthcare information, it is being
>> disclosed to you only after appropriate authorization from the patient
>>or
>> under circumstances that do not require patient authorization. You, the
>> recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and
>>confidential
>> manner. Re-disclosure without additional patient authorization, unless
>> otherwise permitted by law, is prohibited.
>>
>> **********PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL**********
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient of this email, be advised that any
>> use, disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance
>>on
>> the contents of the information contained therein is strictly
>>prohibited. If
>> you have received this email in error, please contact the sender
>>immediately
>> by reply email and then destroy/delete all copies of the original
>>message
>> and any attachment(s) thereto.
>>
>
|