2009 Annual Physicians' CME Preferences Survey

Medical Meetings recently published its "2009 Annual Physicians' CME Preferences Survey." Keep in mind that this was a very small sample of physicians. n = 127. Physicians were given a modest incentive of  $1 to complete the survey. 

You may be surprised by some of the results, but allow me to highlight some topics that impressed me (both in good and bad ways). Below, you'll see some snippets that focus on the following topics: different types of CME providers, PI (Performance Improvement) CME, and the value of CME. (MECC = Medical Education and Communication Company):

The older folks leaned slightly toward perceiving no variance in CME quality, with 30 percent of those older than 55 not noticing a difference in quality between offerings by a MECC, an academic institution, a hospital, a medical society, or other type of provider. Of those younger than 45, just 22 percent perceived no variance, while 55 percent said that quality varied either somewhat or significantly among provider types.

Among those who did have knowledge of PI CME, only a few said that they already were participating. PI CME is “usually time-consuming and not very beneficial,” commented one respondent, while another said, “Performance improvement programs are worthless.” Other than lack of knowledge and a negative outlook toward PI CME, the main barrier people noted was, as one said, “time, time, and time.” Several also noted that the clerical and administrative work PI CME may entail can be a barrier, as can a dearth of access to electronic medical records and technical support that could enable the doc to efficiently track the data.

Despite the grumbling about the time CME takes away from their practices and the costs involved, an overwhelming 93 percent of physicians said that CME activities are either somewhat (57 percent) or extremely (36 percent) effective in meeting their needs. Six percent said they were only slightly effective, and 1 percent said they were not at all effective. Some complained that the CME activities they participated in tended not to cover cutting-edge research. Others stated they were often irrelevant to their practices, or primarily entailed reviewing basic science rather than key clinical information.

To read the entire story on Medical Meetings, click here.