Relationships between drug company representatives and medical students: medical school policies and attitudes of student affairs deans and third-year medical students.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to ascertain the details of medical school policies about relationships between drug companies and medical students as well as student affairs deans' attitudes about these interactions. METHODS: In 2005, the authors surveyed deans and student affairs deans at all U.S. medical schools and asked whether their schools had a policy about relationships between drug companies and medical students. They asked deans at schools with policies to summarize them, queried student affairs deans regarding their attitudes about gifts, and compared their attitudes with those of students who were studied previously. RESULTS: Independently of each other, 114 out of 126 deans (90.5%) and 114 out of 126 student affairs deans (90.5%) responded (identical numbers are not misprints). Ten schools had a policy regarding relationships between medical students and drug company representatives. Student affairs deans were much more likely than students to perceive that gifts were inappropriate. CONCLUSION: These 2005 policies show trends meriting review by current medical schools in considering how to comply with the 2008 Association of American Medical Colleges recommendations about relationships between drug companies and medical students or physicians.

Medical students' exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions: a national survey.

CONTEXT: While exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions among residents have been studied extensively, relatively little is known about relationships between drug companies and medical students. OBJECTIVE: To measure third-year medical students' exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In 2003, we distributed a 64-item anonymous survey to 1143 third-year students at 8 US medical schools, exploring their exposure and response to drug company interactions. The schools' characteristics included a wide spectrum of ownership types, National Institutes of Health funding, and geographic locations. In 2005, we conducted a national survey of student affairs deans to measure the prevalence of school-wide policies on drug company-medical student interactions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly frequency of students' exposure to various activities and gifts during clerkships, and attitudes about receiving gifts. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 826/1143 (72.3%), with range among schools of 30.9%-90.7%. Mean exposure for each student was 1 gift or sponsored activity per week. Of respondents, 762/818 (93.2%) were asked or required by a physician to attend at least 1 sponsored lunch. Regarding attitudes, 556/808 (68.8%) believed gifts would not influence their practices and 464/804 (57.7%) believed gifts would not affect colleagues' practices. Of the students, 553/604 (80.3%) believed that they were entitled to gifts. Of 183 students who thought a gift valued at less than $50 was inappropriate, 158 (86.3%) had accepted one. The number of students who simultaneously believed that sponsored grand rounds are educationally helpful and are likely to be biased was 452/758 (59.6%). Students at 1 school who had attended a seminar about drug company-physician relationships were no more likely than the nonattending classmates to show skepticism. Of the respondents, 704/822 (85.6%) did not know if their school had a policy on these relationships. In a national survey of student affairs deans, among the 99 who knew their policy status, only 10 (10.1%) reported having school-wide policies about these interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Student experiences and attitudes suggest that as a group they are at risk for unrecognized influence by marketing efforts. Research should focus on evaluating methods to limit these experiences and affect the development of students' attitudes to ensure that physicians' decisions are based solely on helping each patient achieve the greatest possible benefit.

Clerkship directors' perceptions of the impact of HCFA documentation guidelines.

PURPOSE: Chart notes are used to support billing codes under the evaluation and management guidelines of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), in addition to serving as a record of the visit. To better understand the effect of the HCFA documentation guidelines, the authors collected data on how the guidelines affect participation by university- and community-based faculty in clinical education programs. METHOD: In 2000, the authors sent six copies of their questionnaire to the associate deans of the 125 U.S. medical schools and requested they distribute them to all core clerkship directors. The questionnaire consisted of multiple-choice and short-answer questions regarding documentation of medical visits, participation of community-based faculty, understanding of HCFA documentation guidelines, and effects on education programs. RESULTS: The response rate was about 50%. Most of the 379 clerkship directors who responded (77%) stated they were aware the HCFA documentation guidelines include specifications regarding the role medical students can play and documentation of medical visits, and 64% indicated they were concerned the guidelines would affect their educational programs. Concerns included the loss of student independence and active participation in the patient care environment (37), time constraints and the changing balance between education and service (16), loss of faculty and decreased morale (11), and decreased quality of care for patients (7). CONCLUSION: Leaders of medical education must work to modify these guidelines to protect the quality of patients' care, while maximizing students' educational opportunity and participation.