Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

During the review of the last REMS assessment, the review team discussed the possibility of the collection

of a standard set of demographic characteristics across all accredited CE Providers to be reported

in the annual assessment and also be used to compare prescribers who complete the Prescriber

Follow-up Survey and the Long-term Evaluation Survey. The specific request included

collection of:

1. Medical degree (overlaps with Profession; they will change the survey)

2. Specialty (Overlaps with practice type but provides more detail. Would need to rationalize -see specialties from healthcare lom and notes of previous discussion)

3. Years in practice (Note: the survey uses ranges: 0-5, 6-15, 15+. See suggested breakdown discussed 1/17/2017)

4. Gender (Male/Female)

5. Geographic region (Primary state of practice)

6. Prescribing volume in the past month on average (to be excluded per 9/26 call)

7. ER/LA opioid analgesics prescribed within the past 6 months (to be excluded per 9/26 call)

 

None of these demographic criteria are currently collected by all CE Providers, and we received the following feedback regarding concerns with collecting this data:

 

? The addition of questions to collect these data will add substantial burden to the process

for the learner, provider, and grantee. From the perspective of the learner, these

prescribers have already spent two to three hours on content and completed a time intensive,

comprehensive assessment at completion.

? Mandatory collection of items #6 and #7 may deter prescribers from participating in the

accredited REMS-compliant CE activity. Prescribers may not be willing to provide

information for items #6 and #7 and if they do, the data collected may be of questionable

value based on recall bias. Further, some accredited CE Providers have communicated to

potential prescriber completers that de-identified data on prescriber completers will not

be provided to the RPC or FDA to encourage participation. Collection of these types of

data may be seen as collection of prescriber identifying information.

 

When we spoke back in the spring about reconvening the Working group, there were a couple of items that we thought might be useful to collect as well:

  1. Prescribers who practice under an institutional DEA registration (don’t official “count” towards training goals)
  2. Information that would help identify who the other completers are that don’t “count”, e.g., nurse practitioners who do not have the ability to prescribe; pharmacists, others
  • No labels