US accreditor moves to tackle industry's influence on medical education
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The United States抯 chief accreditation body for medical education has announced new standards that require education providers to identify and resolve any conflicts of interest.
The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education抯 new standards are tougher than their 1992 predecessors, which only required conflicts of interest to be disclosed. But they are less restrictive than an early draft, which unleashed a firestorm of controversy when many interpreted it as banning anyone receiving drug industry money from providing continuing medical education.
The original draft, released in January 2003, stated that if a person had conflicts of interest that were not resolved, he or she could not be involved in providing continuing medical education. The pharmaceutical industry called the requirements 揹raconian,?and argued梐long with many physicians梩hat they would put 揳 lot of the best and the brightest?out of the continuing medical education business.
Dr Murray Kopelow, chief executive of the accreditation council, said the current draft was simpler and easier to understand than the original, and he did not think its implications had changed as it still in effect required teachers to resolve conflicts of interest before providing education activities.
Policing the new standards may be 搃nteresting,?but their tone is 搗ery appropriate,?said Dr William Golden, chairman of the Ethics and Human Rights Committee of the American College of Physicians. 揑 think the key issue is to ensure transparency and to avoid hidden bias in the delivery of content.?/p>
Letting physicians know just exactly how much commercial money is involved in continuing medical education梬hich the accreditation council doesn抰 plan to require梬ould be an easy way to begin to control drug industry influence, proposes Dr R van Harrison, director of the office of continuing medical education at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor.
As US academic and hospital funding of such education dries up, Dr Harrison noted, the flow of commercial funding has increased more than enough to make up the difference and now accounts for well over half off all the money spent on continuing medical education. Organised medicine has become deeply dependent on industry money梐nd most physicians aren抰 aware of the extent of this dependence, he added. 揟hat information has been carefully kept from the medical public.?/p>
Dr Harrison fears that, in practice, the accreditation council抯 new standards may be too loosely interpreted to be effective. 揥e don抰 know what 憆esolve?means.?The definitions he had heard from the council, he said, were getting 揵roader and broader, and functionally softer and softer.?/p>
The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America, the drug industry抯 main lobbying group in the United States, says it is reasonably happy with the new standards.
The accreditation council抯 seven parent bodies have until 28 September to sign off on the guidelines, and so far two, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the Association of American Medical Colleges, have done so.(Maplewood, New Jersey Ann)
The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education抯 new standards are tougher than their 1992 predecessors, which only required conflicts of interest to be disclosed. But they are less restrictive than an early draft, which unleashed a firestorm of controversy when many interpreted it as banning anyone receiving drug industry money from providing continuing medical education.
The original draft, released in January 2003, stated that if a person had conflicts of interest that were not resolved, he or she could not be involved in providing continuing medical education. The pharmaceutical industry called the requirements 揹raconian,?and argued梐long with many physicians梩hat they would put 揳 lot of the best and the brightest?out of the continuing medical education business.
Dr Murray Kopelow, chief executive of the accreditation council, said the current draft was simpler and easier to understand than the original, and he did not think its implications had changed as it still in effect required teachers to resolve conflicts of interest before providing education activities.
Policing the new standards may be 搃nteresting,?but their tone is 搗ery appropriate,?said Dr William Golden, chairman of the Ethics and Human Rights Committee of the American College of Physicians. 揑 think the key issue is to ensure transparency and to avoid hidden bias in the delivery of content.?/p>
Letting physicians know just exactly how much commercial money is involved in continuing medical education梬hich the accreditation council doesn抰 plan to require梬ould be an easy way to begin to control drug industry influence, proposes Dr R van Harrison, director of the office of continuing medical education at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor.
As US academic and hospital funding of such education dries up, Dr Harrison noted, the flow of commercial funding has increased more than enough to make up the difference and now accounts for well over half off all the money spent on continuing medical education. Organised medicine has become deeply dependent on industry money梐nd most physicians aren抰 aware of the extent of this dependence, he added. 揟hat information has been carefully kept from the medical public.?/p>
Dr Harrison fears that, in practice, the accreditation council抯 new standards may be too loosely interpreted to be effective. 揥e don抰 know what 憆esolve?means.?The definitions he had heard from the council, he said, were getting 揵roader and broader, and functionally softer and softer.?/p>
The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America, the drug industry抯 main lobbying group in the United States, says it is reasonably happy with the new standards.
The accreditation council抯 seven parent bodies have until 28 September to sign off on the guidelines, and so far two, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the Association of American Medical Colleges, have done so.(Maplewood, New Jersey Ann)