1. Program Co-Development in CME: Where have we been? Where are we going? Workshop Facilitators: Dr. Craig Campbell Dr. Jamie Meuser September 21, 2012 1

2. Our Conflict of Interest Declaration 2 We do not have any: 1.financial relationships with members of pharmaceutical or medical supply companies. 2.research grants funded by industry 3.Memberships on advisory boards for any ‘for-profit’ industry We both are responsible for policy development related to the MAINPRO and MOC programs.

3. Raise your hand if your work in Continuing Medical Education is associated with a:  Faculty of Medicine?  Specialty society?  Regulatory Authority?  National organization or College? Are you a:  Physician?  Health Professional?  CEO or Executive Director?  Manager or administrative staff member? 3 Participant Introductions

4. How many of you have participated in the co-development of:  Accredited group learning activities?  Unaccredited group learning activities?  Self-assessment programs?  Simulations?  Other types of activities What is your specific interest in exploring questions regarding CE co-development? 4 Participant Introductions

5. 1.Define and differentiate co-development from sponsorship? 2.Discuss the success of co-development in achieving its stated goals 3.Explore unexpected benefits and unintended consequences 4.Discuss future directions Our Intention: to facilitate discussion and dialogue throughout the workshop! 5 Workshop Outline

6. At the end of this workshop you will be able to: 1.Describe the approach to, and experience with, program co-development in Canada 2.Analyze the efficacy of co-development as a mechanism for improving quality and avoiding bias in CME programs 3.Assess strategies for change as applied to co- development of CME programs. 6 Workshop Objectives

7. Definition Co-development: “The process by which two or more organizations prospectively collaborate to develop and implement an educational activity, learning resource or tool.” 7 Introduction to Co-Development

8. Rationale for co-development Promote a collaborative model for the CPD resource development (for example: courses, self-assessment programs, simulation activities, performance assessment tools). Assumption: Any individual CPD provider organization did not have the expertise and/or resources to respond to every identified need. 8 Introduction to Co-Development

9. How is this different from sponsorship? Sponsorship definition: “The process by which an individual, group, corporation or organization provides resources (financial or in-kind contributions) to another organization to support the development of an accredited educational activity, learning resource, or tool.” 9 Introduction to Co-Development

10. Sponsorship intent:  Provision of resources – either financial (a grant) or other in kind resources (for example equipment such as task trainers that have financial value!)  No influence or involvement of sponsors in the planning or development of a course, program or tool. 10 Introduction to Co-Development

11. 2007 Revised CMA Ethical Guidelines  CME provider organizations are responsible for “ensuring the scientific validity, objectivity and completeness of CME / CPD activities”  Prohibits the involvement of industry representatives on CME planning committees Sets significant limits on any co-development initiatives with industry 11 Introduction to Co-Development

12. In your experience:  Describe any unexpected benefits you have identified from engaging in co-development initiatives?  What are the key unintended consequences from your participation in co-developed activities?  What challenges has co-development policies posed for program planners in implementing co-development standards? 12 Your reflections on co-development

13.  Lack of clarity between what distinguishes co-development from sponsorship  Variation of practices on defining when a co-development relationship has been established.  Structures and mechanisms that circumvent the intent of co- development  Perception of excess oversight to the accreditation process that has already well defined standards and expectations. 13 Co-Development: Unintended Consequences

14. In your opinion: 1. How successful has co-development been at achieving its stated purpose facilitating the collaboration between organizations in the development of learning activities, programs or tools for physicians? 2. Given the ethical guidelines governing industry involvement in planning of CME activities, is co-development a term that is still meaningful and relevant? 14 Group Discussion Questions

15. 3. What further advice would you provide the College of Family Physicians or the Royal College regarding:  Revisions to the current co-development standards?  The future development of co-development policies? 15 Group Discussion Questions

16. 16 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION Dr. Craig Campbell Dr. Jamie Meuser