Enhancing Patient Care II: The Clinical Impact of Medical Information Services.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the ways that healthcare providers (HCPs) utilize medical information received from the pharmaceutical industry is important so that the information can be tailored and customized to meet the HCPs needs. Additionally, this understanding supports the value of the information provided. The purpose of this study was to collect opinions of HCPs who recently requested information from a manufacturer's Medical Information (Med Info) Service. HCPs provided their opinions on the perceived quality, relevance, impact on patient care, and intended usage of information. METHODS: HCPs who recently requested medical information from one of eight participating companies received a Survey Monkey link in the information response. Data collected included demographics, perceived quality, relevance, impact on patient care, and intended usage of the information. Data were analyzed via descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Over a 14-month period, 246 HCPs responded to the survey. Eight companies participated in the survey. Customer responses to the survey ranged from 2 to 97 per company. A total of 99 pharmacists, 68 physicians, 22 registered nurses, 21 nurse practitioners, 8 physician assistants, and 28 others participated in the survey. Most HCPs (208/227, 92%) contacted the company Med Info Group 1-5 times in the last six months and 67% (159/238) had been in practice greater than 10 years. Most HCPs rated the following quality areas as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale: timeliness (195/225, 87%), trustworthiness (189/221, 86%), conciseness (185/221, 84%), clarity (180/222, 81%), relevance (178/223, 80%), and completeness (173/222, 78%). The most common reason for contacting Med Info Services was to advance knowledge or education (110/228, 48%). Additional reasons were at the point of care (60/228, 26%), for a specific patient (not at point of care) (60/228, 26%), and to reflect on a treatment decision (59/228, 26%). The relevance of the information provided was utilized for the HCPs own education (99/226, 44%), shared with peers (91/226, 40%), or used for future treatment decisions (88/226, 39%). The information provided enhanced patient care by enabling the HCPs to educate patients more effectively (86/222, 39%), efficacy of treatment regimen was enhanced (70/222, 32%), or other positive impact (65/222, 29%). CONCLUSION: The opinions of HCPs who are using Medical Information Services are overall positive. All the quality indicators were rated as a 4 or 5 by the majority of HCPs, with the lowest in completeness (173/222, 78%) and the highest in timeliness (195/225, 87%). Medical Information Services were utilized to advance knowledge/education of the HCP, followed closely by the care of a current or future patient. However, when queried on the relevant use of the information in their practice, the most common answers were for their own education or to share with peers. The impact on patient care was focused on enabling the HCP to educate patients more effectively. The value of medical information is difficult to quantify. Understanding the quality assessment, utilization, and the impact on patient care by HCPs can provide a broad descriptor of value. This study supports the value of the medical information responses provided by pharmaceutical companies to HCPs in their practice(s).

Pharma Collaboration for Transparent Medical Information (phactMI™) Benchmark Study: Trends, Drivers, and Value of Product Support Activities, Key Performance Indicators, and Other Medical Information Services: Insights from a Survey of 27 US Pharmaceutical Medical Information Departments.

BACKGROUND: A benchmarking survey was conducted by the pharmaceutical collaboration for transparent Medical Information (phactMI™) consortium, with the goal to capture insights from the 27 member companies and their medical information organizations. METHODS: phactMI™ Benchmarking Committee delivered an electronic survey to 27 United States (US) member companies' Medical Information (MI) departments between December 12, 2017 and February 20, 2018. The survey consisted of approximately 300 questions, divided into 9 topics which included multiple choice and open-ended questions about the following categories: medical information support provided based on different product lifecycles, key metrics measured to assess department performance, and other key services provided by medical information groups. RESULTS: The extent of MI product support varied across the lifecycle of a product. Most companies provided MI product support throughout the product lifecycle starting from investigational all the way through mature; however, the extent of activities varied. The top key performance indicators (KPIs) that were reported to senior leadership included response turnaround time (59%) and inquiry volume (48%). Among the 27 companies, 85% noted using customer satisfaction surveys administered via links within written response documents and 52% verbally via the company's call center. Other services with which MI groups noted most involvement included congress booth support (100%), insights/metric reporting (96%), and training the sales force on the MI function (74%). Additional services included payor support clinical pathway submissions (22%), presenting at advisory boards (22%), and competitive intelligence (26%). CONCLUSION: The results of this survey provide pharmaceutical MI groups with opportunities to consider services or activities that could enhance the support these groups provide to their customers and business partners.