Reinhard Griebenow

Proposal for a graded approach to disclosure of interests in accredited CME/CPD

Disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) is an important step in the management of COIs and is considered to be crucial to the trustworthiness of presenters. There are significant variations in disclosure procedures regarding the following: a. How COI is assessed in declaration forms (e.g. type of question, respondent awareness) b. Type of relationships c. Detailing of information to program committee members These variations in procedures have in effect led to a. Underreporting of COI b. Reducing the informational value of declared COI to participants Thus, it has been the aim of the authors to propose a basic formula for a minimum standard declaration of financial COI, with the potential to be applicable to all types of accredited continuing medical education (CME) as well as to all individuals (e.g. speakers, authors) involved in planning and conduct of CME activities. This approach should also serve as basis for more elaborate disclosures as well as strategies for management of conflict of interests adapted to the risk of bias. Furthermore, we also propose a basic set of items to be declared as nonfinancial interests.

Time course of change in prescription behaviour after targeted continuing medical education in a closed loop system of repeated standardised documentation and feedback

Objective. This study investigates whether introducing targeted CME into a regular feedback system being part of a disease management programme (DMP) will improve prescription behaviour, and if yes, how long it will take to demonstrate this effect and what could be the magnitude of such an effect. Methods. From the database of the DMP coronary artery disease (CAD) in the two German regions of North Rhine (NR) and Westphalia Lippe (WL), respectively, all patients with heart failure in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II and III were extracted. Prescription of combination therapy (ACE inhibitor, ACE-I, and beta blocker, BB), as recommended by the guidelines, was prospectively monitored for 6 years after this topic was addressed in a series of accredited CME modules. These modules were part of extended feedback reports for NR physicians, while physicians in WL received basic feedback reports only. Data were analysed according to participants vs. non-participants in CME vs. control group (WL). Results. The largest increase was observed with regard to the additional prescription of an ACE-I in patients who only received a BB at baseline. BB prescription rates increased to a lesser extent. But for both drugs, prescription rates did not reach their maximum even at the end of the 6 years’ observation period. Significant differences in prescription rates in favour of patients of CME participants could only be demonstrated after 3 years from the first CME article. Conclusions. The DMP CAD has to be considered as a multifaceted intervention which significantly changes prescription behaviour. Combination of the DMP with a further multifaceted intervention (print CME) added only little to this effect. The time course of change makes it difficult exclusively to relate the observed changes in prescription rates to the CME intervention.

Determinanten für die Bearbeitungszeit von zertifizierter Fortbildung in Printmedien

ZusammenfassungHintergrund und Ziel:Die Fortbildungsordnung für Ärzte definiert die Zeiteinheit einer akademischen Stunde (45 min) als die Grundlage für die Vergabe eines Fortbildungspunkts. Für die zertifizierte Fortbildung in Printmedien existieren keine Daten zur Bearbeitungsdauer solcher Artikel. Ziel der Arbeit ist die Analyse der Bearbeitungszeit und ihrer Determinanten anhand eines Jahrgangs von Fortbildungsartikeln für ein breites Spektrum von Fachrichtungen.Material und Methodik:Ausgewertet wurden die Angaben in einem standardisierten Evaluationsbogen für den kompletten Jahrgang 2004 aller von einem deutschen Verlag herausgegebenen Facharztzeitschriften mit einem von der Nordrheinischen Akademie für ärztliche Fort- und Weiterbildung zertifizierten Fortbildungsangebot.Ergebnisse:Auf der Basis von 18 Zeitschriften und 12 587 Teilnehmern mit 65 393 Bearbeitungen von Fortbildungsartikeln einschließlich Fragen zur „Lernerfolgskontrolle“ zeigte sich, dass zwischen der Bearbeitungszeit und der Zeichenzahl (als Parameter für den Umfang der Artikel) nur eine schwache lineare Korrelation (r = 0,221) bestand. Dagegen fand sich eine stärkere Abhängigkeit der Bearbeitungszeit von Parametern, die den Bezug des Lesers zum abgehandelten Thema charakterisieren (z.B. vorbestehende Strategie bezüglich des abgehandelten Problems, Berufsalter, Häufigkeit des Krankheitsbilds im klinischen Alltag) und dem Ausmaß des Wissenszuwachses. Sehr lange Bearbeitungszeiten wurden mit zunehmendem Alter häufiger angetroffen. Tageszeit und Wochentag hatten keinen nennenswerten Einfluss auf die Bearbeitungsdauer, die bei Bearbeitung mehrerer Fortbildungsartikel bis zur vierten Teilnahme zunahm und dann keine gerichteten Veränderungen mehr zeigte.Schlussfolgerung:Die Bearbeitungszeit von Fortbildungsartikeln in Printmedien wird wesentlich durch den Bezug des Lesers zum abgehandelten klinischen Problem determiniert, der Umfang des Artikels ist von untergeordneter Bedeutung. Die Vergabe von Fortbildungspunkten im Rahmen des Fortbildungszertifikats der Ärztekammern sollte daher von einer Realerhebung der Bearbeitungszeiten abhängig gemacht werden.AbstractBackground and Purpose:In Germanys, 45 min of continuing medical education (CME) are awarded 1 credit point. It was the aim of this study to assess the time amount needed to read a CME article in a wide variety of specialist journals.Material and Methods:All CME articles in 18 specialist journals presented in 2004 were analyzed, which had all used the same evaluation form provided by the Chamber of Physicians North Rhine (65,393 evaluation forms of 12,587 participants).Results:There was only a weak linear relationship between the time needed to read an article and the number of characters as a measure of length of the text. Duration of reading was more closely related to the amount of new data presented and was inversely related to duration of professional activity and clinical experience, but, on the other hand, age was positively related to very long reading times. Reading times also increased with the number of articles read, up to the fourth article. Day of the week and hour of the day revealed no influence on reading time.Conclusion:The time amount needed to read a CME article is mainly determined by factors which are relevant in terms of clinical experience, while the length of the article is only of minor importance. Thus, the number of credit points awarded for reading CME articles should be based on direct assessment of reading time.

Determinanten für die Bearbeitungszeit von zertifizierter Fortbildung in Printmedien@@@How Long Do Doctors Need to Read a Paper in Specialist Journals Presenting Accredited Continuing Medical Education (CME)?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In Germany, 45 min of continuing medical education (CME) are awarded 1 credit point. It was the aim of this study to assess the time amount needed to read a CME article in a wide variety of specialist journals. MATERIAL AND METHODS All CME articles in 18 specialist journals presented in 2004 were analyzed, which had all used the same evaluation form provided by the Chamber of Physicians North Rhine (65,393 evaluation forms of 12,587 participants). RESULTS There was only a weak linear relationship between the time needed to read an article and the number of characters as a measure of length of the text. Duration of reading was more closely related to the amount of new data presented and was inversely related to duration of professional activity and clinical experience, but, on the other hand, age was positively related to very long reading times. Reading times also increased with the number of articles read, up to the fourth article. Day of the week and hour of the day revealed no influence on reading time. CONCLUSION The time amount needed to read a CME article is mainly determined by factors which are relevant in terms of clinical experience, while the length of the article is only of minor importance. Thus, the number of credit points awarded for reading CME articles should be based on direct assessment of reading time.ZusammenfassungHintergrund und Ziel:Die Fortbildungsordnung für Ärzte definiert die Zeiteinheit einer akademischen Stunde (45 min) als die Grundlage für die Vergabe eines Fortbildungspunkts. Für die zertifizierte Fortbildung in Printmedien existieren keine Daten zur Bearbeitungsdauer solcher Artikel. Ziel der Arbeit ist die Analyse der Bearbeitungszeit und ihrer Determinanten anhand eines Jahrgangs von Fortbildungsartikeln für ein breites Spektrum von Fachrichtungen.Material und Methodik:Ausgewertet wurden die Angaben in einem standardisierten Evaluationsbogen für den kompletten Jahrgang 2004 aller von einem deutschen Verlag herausgegebenen Facharztzeitschriften mit einem von der Nordrheinischen Akademie für ärztliche Fort- und Weiterbildung zertifizierten Fortbildungsangebot.Ergebnisse:Auf der Basis von 18 Zeitschriften und 12 587 Teilnehmern mit 65 393 Bearbeitungen von Fortbildungsartikeln einschließlich Fragen zur „Lernerfolgskontrolle“ zeigte sich, dass zwischen der Bearbeitungszeit und der Zeichenzahl (als Parameter für den Umfang der Artikel) nur eine schwache lineare Korrelation (r = 0,221) bestand. Dagegen fand sich eine stärkere Abhängigkeit der Bearbeitungszeit von Parametern, die den Bezug des Lesers zum abgehandelten Thema charakterisieren (z.B. vorbestehende Strategie bezüglich des abgehandelten Problems, Berufsalter, Häufigkeit des Krankheitsbilds im klinischen Alltag) und dem Ausmaß des Wissenszuwachses. Sehr lange Bearbeitungszeiten wurden mit zunehmendem Alter häufiger angetroffen. Tageszeit und Wochentag hatten keinen nennenswerten Einfluss auf die Bearbeitungsdauer, die bei Bearbeitung mehrerer Fortbildungsartikel bis zur vierten Teilnahme zunahm und dann keine gerichteten Veränderungen mehr zeigte.Schlussfolgerung:Die Bearbeitungszeit von Fortbildungsartikeln in Printmedien wird wesentlich durch den Bezug des Lesers zum abgehandelten klinischen Problem determiniert, der Umfang des Artikels ist von untergeordneter Bedeutung. Die Vergabe von Fortbildungspunkten im Rahmen des Fortbildungszertifikats der Ärztekammern sollte daher von einer Realerhebung der Bearbeitungszeiten abhängig gemacht werden.AbstractBackground and Purpose:In Germanys, 45 min of continuing medical education (CME) are awarded 1 credit point. It was the aim of this study to assess the time amount needed to read a CME article in a wide variety of specialist journals.Material and Methods:All CME articles in 18 specialist journals presented in 2004 were analyzed, which had all used the same evaluation form provided by the Chamber of Physicians North Rhine (65,393 evaluation forms of 12,587 participants).Results:There was only a weak linear relationship between the time needed to read an article and the number of characters as a measure of length of the text. Duration of reading was more closely related to the amount of new data presented and was inversely related to duration of professional activity and clinical experience, but, on the other hand, age was positively related to very long reading times. Reading times also increased with the number of articles read, up to the fourth article. Day of the week and hour of the day revealed no influence on reading time.Conclusion:The time amount needed to read a CME article is mainly determined by factors which are relevant in terms of clinical experience, while the length of the article is only of minor importance. Thus, the number of credit points awarded for reading CME articles should be based on direct assessment of reading time.

Position paper on current aspects of sponsoring in accredited CME

ABSTRACT This position paper is the result of a collaborative approach of several European Specialty Accreditation Boards (ESABs) and, has been stimulated by their current experience in accreditation regarding roles and responsibilities assumed by sponsors of accredited continuing medical education (CME). The suggestions made in this paper aim to preserve the fundamental principle in CME accreditation that the physician in charge of the programme has sole responsibility for the selection of topics, speakers, content and format, as well as mode of presentation, and that sponsors will under no circumstances interfere with this principle. This is considered as a responsibility of an individual physician (or physicians), which cannot be delegated, even in part, to third parties. This responsibility has been extended to include all communication before and after the event. The paper also identifies undecided issues, about which ESABs are committed to elaborate proposals in the future.

European Board for Accreditation in Cardiology (EBAC) 2015 CME/CPD Survey Summary

In the spring of 2015, the European Board for Accreditation in Cardiology (EBAC) collaborated with International CME/CPD Consulting to design and administer a survey to approximately 1,171 professionals active in the field of European CME/CPD, with a focus on cardiology. With a nearly 5% response rate, the results herewith are non-representative, but do express current behaviours and attitudes of those active in European accredited CME/CPD.

CME in a General Medical Journal: Three-Year Evaluation of CME in Deutsches Ärzteblatt

Purpose: There is a dearth of data regarding journal-based continuing medical education (CME) programs. Deutsches Ärzteblatt has been publishing CME articles since 2004. Articles are accompanied by a test on the article’s content as well as a readers’ evaluation questionnaire. The goal was to find out whether a journal-based CME program can be successfully tailored to a multidisciplinary audience. Summary: This study is an analysis of 706,995 participations (76,486 participants) between September 2004 and August 2007. Main dependent variables were the percentages of correctly answered test questions. Independent variables were subgroups defined by demographic and job-related (e.g., specialty) variables, and characteristics emerging from the participants’ evaluations of the articles. On average, 9.55 (SD = 0.82) out of 10 test questions were answered correctly. Significant differences were found between the subgroups, but these were small. Significant intersubgroup differences for difficult questions were larger yet still small in absolute terms. Reader satisfaction was high. Conclusions: Our results indicate that these articles are suitable for a wide range of physicians. The high percentage of correct answers reflects the understanding in Germany that CME questions should not mimic examinations but rather check whether readers have read the article attentively.

Comparative evaluation of sponsored and unsponsored continuing medical education

ZusammenfassungHintergrund und Ziel:Die Fortbildungsordnung für Ärzte gibt vor, dass die Inhalte von Fortbildung frei von wirtschaftlichen Interessen sein müssen. Für Deutschland liegen bisher keine Daten dazu vor, inwieweit Sponsoring von Fortbildung Darstellungen der Inhalte und Wahrnehmung der Teilnehmer beeinflusst. Ziel der Arbeit war die Evaluation von zertifizierten Fortbildungsveranstaltungen mit und ohne Sponsoring.Material und Methodik:Alle von der Nordrheinischen Akademie für ärztliche Fort- und Weiterbildung zertifizierten Fortbildungsveranstaltungen werden mit einem einheitlichen Fragebogen evaluiert. Es wurden die Bögen von 23 240 Teilnehmern aus 1 019 Veranstaltungen ausgewertet; dies entspricht einer Rücklaufquote von 13,5% aller im Erhebungszeitraum (Februar 2002 bis Mai 2003) zertifizierten Veranstaltungen.Ergebnisse:Etwa zwei Drittel aller Teilnehmer waren Fachärzte. Die Teilnehmer gesponserter Veranstaltungen (64,6%) hatten ein etwas höheres Berufsalter, befassten sich öfter mit Themen, die häufig in ihrem Berufsalltag vorkamen, und hatten daher bereits vor der Veranstaltung häufiger eine feste Strategie für den Umgang mit den abgehandelten medizinischen Problemen als Teilnehmer ungesponserter Veranstaltungen. Die nach Schulnoten durchgeführte Bewertung der Veranstaltungen ergab in beiden Gruppen ein gutes bis sehr gutes Ergebnis für alle abgefragten Kategorien und auch im Vergleich zu anderen Fortbildungsmöglichkeiten ein positives Urteil für die Präsenzveranstaltungen, die bei etwa 28% aller Teilnehmer eine persönliche Strategieänderung bewirkten. Auf 7,7% aller Fragebögen (10,0% bei gesponserten und 3,4% bei ungesponserten Veranstaltungen; p < 0,001) wurde angegeben, eine werbliche Beeinflussung festgestellt zu haben. Teilnehmer, die eine werbliche Beeinflussung festgestellt hatten, hatten einen engeren Bezug zum Thema, fanden die Darstellung häufiger unvollständig und die strategiebildende Wirkung der Veranstaltung durch die werbliche Einflussnahme negativ beeinflusst.Schlussfolgerung:Bei insgesamt guter bis sehr guter Bewertung aller Veranstaltungen wurde in knapp 8% der Fragebögen angegeben, eine werbliche Einflussnahme registriert zu haben, was damit ein relativ seltenes Phänomen war, aber die strategiebildende Wirkung der Veranstaltung bei diesen Teilnehmern beeinträchtigte. Die Beachtung der für die Zertifizierung geforderten Vorgaben und die obligate Evaluation sind damit offensichtlich in der Lage, einen werblichen Einfluss größeren Ausmaßes in gesponserten und ungesponserten Veranstaltungen zu verhindern.AbstractBackground and Purpose:Continuing medical education (CME), by law, has to be free of commercial influences. Sponsoring of CME in Germany has never been evaluated regarding potential influences on presentation of data and perception of participants. The present paper evaluates the impact of sponsoring on accredited CME events.Material und Methods:All CME events accredited by the Chamber of Physicians North Rhine have to be evaluated by a standard evaluation form. The data of 23,240 physicians participating in 1,019 consecutive CME events (representing 13.5% of all accredited events in the sampling period from February 2002 to May 2003) have been analyzed.Results:Nearly two thirds of all participants were specialists. 64.6% of all evaluation forms had been sent back from sponsored CME events. Participants in sponsored events were older and, regarding the topic of the presentation, they were more often familiar with and had a diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for the clinical problem presented. Both types of CME events were rated good to excellent regarding a set of evaluation categories, about 28% of all participants felt their personal strategy had been changed by the event. On 7.7% of all evaluation forms (10% in sponsored and 3.4% in sponsored events; p < 0.001), the participants noted a commercial bias. The participants who noted a commercial bias were more experienced in the topic discussed, found the presentation of data more often incomplete, and felt a negative impact on their learning behavior.Conclusion:Sponsored and unsponsored CME events are rated as equally satisfactory by the great majority of participants. Only in about 8% of the evaluation forms a commercial bias was noted, which had a negative impact on the educational value of the CME event. Thus, it seems most likely that the regulatory framework for accreditation is able to prevent large-scale commercial influence on CME events.BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Continuing medical education (CME), by law, has to be free of commercial influences. Sponsoring of CME in Germany has never been evaluated regarding potential influences on presentation of data and perception of participants. The present paper evaluates the impact of sponsoring on accredited CME events. MATERIAL AND METHODS All CME events accredited by the Chamber of Physicians North Rhine have to be evaluated by a standard evaluation form. The data of 23,240 physicians participating in 1,019 consecutive CME events (representing 13.5% of all accredited events in the sampling period from February 2002 to May 2003) have been analyzed. RESULTS Nearly two thirds of all participants were specialists. 64.6% of all evaluation forms had been sent back from sponsored CME events. Participants in sponsored events were older and, regarding the topic of the presentation, they were more often familiar with and had a diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for the clinical problem presented. Both types of CME events were rated good to excellent regarding a set of evaluation categories, about 28% of all participants felt their personal strategy had been changed by the event. On 7.7% of all evaluation forms (10% in sponsored and 3.4% in sponsored events; p<0.001), the participants noted a commercial bias. The participants who noted a commercial bias were more experienced in the topic discussed, found the presentation of data more often incomplete, and felt a negative impact on their learning behavior. CONCLUSION Sponsored and unsponsored CME events are rated as equally satisfactory by the great majority of participants. Only in about 8% of the evaluation forms a commercial bias was noted, which had a negative impact on the educational value of the CME event. Thus, it seems most likely that the regulatory framework for accreditation is able to prevent large-scale commercial influence on CME events.

Evaluation der Fortbildung: Einfluss des Sponsorings im Urteil der Teilnehmer

ZusammenfassungHintergrund und Ziel:Die Fortbildungsordnung für Ärzte gibt vor, dass die Inhalte von Fortbildung frei von wirtschaftlichen Interessen sein müssen. Für Deutschland liegen bisher keine Daten dazu vor, inwieweit Sponsoring von Fortbildung Darstellungen der Inhalte und Wahrnehmung der Teilnehmer beeinflusst. Ziel der Arbeit war die Evaluation von zertifizierten Fortbildungsveranstaltungen mit und ohne Sponsoring.Material und Methodik:Alle von der Nordrheinischen Akademie für ärztliche Fort- und Weiterbildung zertifizierten Fortbildungsveranstaltungen werden mit einem einheitlichen Fragebogen evaluiert. Es wurden die Bögen von 23 240 Teilnehmern aus 1 019 Veranstaltungen ausgewertet; dies entspricht einer Rücklaufquote von 13,5% aller im Erhebungszeitraum (Februar 2002 bis Mai 2003) zertifizierten Veranstaltungen.Ergebnisse:Etwa zwei Drittel aller Teilnehmer waren Fachärzte. Die Teilnehmer gesponserter Veranstaltungen (64,6%) hatten ein etwas höheres Berufsalter, befassten sich öfter mit Themen, die häufig in ihrem Berufsalltag vorkamen, und hatten daher bereits vor der Veranstaltung häufiger eine feste Strategie für den Umgang mit den abgehandelten medizinischen Problemen als Teilnehmer ungesponserter Veranstaltungen. Die nach Schulnoten durchgeführte Bewertung der Veranstaltungen ergab in beiden Gruppen ein gutes bis sehr gutes Ergebnis für alle abgefragten Kategorien und auch im Vergleich zu anderen Fortbildungsmöglichkeiten ein positives Urteil für die Präsenzveranstaltungen, die bei etwa 28% aller Teilnehmer eine persönliche Strategieänderung bewirkten. Auf 7,7% aller Fragebögen (10,0% bei gesponserten und 3,4% bei ungesponserten Veranstaltungen; p < 0,001) wurde angegeben, eine werbliche Beeinflussung festgestellt zu haben. Teilnehmer, die eine werbliche Beeinflussung festgestellt hatten, hatten einen engeren Bezug zum Thema, fanden die Darstellung häufiger unvollständig und die strategiebildende Wirkung der Veranstaltung durch die werbliche Einflussnahme negativ beeinflusst.Schlussfolgerung:Bei insgesamt guter bis sehr guter Bewertung aller Veranstaltungen wurde in knapp 8% der Fragebögen angegeben, eine werbliche Einflussnahme registriert zu haben, was damit ein relativ seltenes Phänomen war, aber die strategiebildende Wirkung der Veranstaltung bei diesen Teilnehmern beeinträchtigte. Die Beachtung der für die Zertifizierung geforderten Vorgaben und die obligate Evaluation sind damit offensichtlich in der Lage, einen werblichen Einfluss größeren Ausmaßes in gesponserten und ungesponserten Veranstaltungen zu verhindern.AbstractBackground and Purpose:Continuing medical education (CME), by law, has to be free of commercial influences. Sponsoring of CME in Germany has never been evaluated regarding potential influences on presentation of data and perception of participants. The present paper evaluates the impact of sponsoring on accredited CME events.Material und Methods:All CME events accredited by the Chamber of Physicians North Rhine have to be evaluated by a standard evaluation form. The data of 23,240 physicians participating in 1,019 consecutive CME events (representing 13.5% of all accredited events in the sampling period from February 2002 to May 2003) have been analyzed.Results:Nearly two thirds of all participants were specialists. 64.6% of all evaluation forms had been sent back from sponsored CME events. Participants in sponsored events were older and, regarding the topic of the presentation, they were more often familiar with and had a diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for the clinical problem presented. Both types of CME events were rated good to excellent regarding a set of evaluation categories, about 28% of all participants felt their personal strategy had been changed by the event. On 7.7% of all evaluation forms (10% in sponsored and 3.4% in sponsored events; p < 0.001), the participants noted a commercial bias. The participants who noted a commercial bias were more experienced in the topic discussed, found the presentation of data more often incomplete, and felt a negative impact on their learning behavior.Conclusion:Sponsored and unsponsored CME events are rated as equally satisfactory by the great majority of participants. Only in about 8% of the evaluation forms a commercial bias was noted, which had a negative impact on the educational value of the CME event. Thus, it seems most likely that the regulatory framework for accreditation is able to prevent large-scale commercial influence on CME events.BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Continuing medical education (CME), by law, has to be free of commercial influences. Sponsoring of CME in Germany has never been evaluated regarding potential influences on presentation of data and perception of participants. The present paper evaluates the impact of sponsoring on accredited CME events. MATERIAL AND METHODS All CME events accredited by the Chamber of Physicians North Rhine have to be evaluated by a standard evaluation form. The data of 23,240 physicians participating in 1,019 consecutive CME events (representing 13.5% of all accredited events in the sampling period from February 2002 to May 2003) have been analyzed. RESULTS Nearly two thirds of all participants were specialists. 64.6% of all evaluation forms had been sent back from sponsored CME events. Participants in sponsored events were older and, regarding the topic of the presentation, they were more often familiar with and had a diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for the clinical problem presented. Both types of CME events were rated good to excellent regarding a set of evaluation categories, about 28% of all participants felt their personal strategy had been changed by the event. On 7.7% of all evaluation forms (10% in sponsored and 3.4% in sponsored events; p<0.001), the participants noted a commercial bias. The participants who noted a commercial bias were more experienced in the topic discussed, found the presentation of data more often incomplete, and felt a negative impact on their learning behavior. CONCLUSION Sponsored and unsponsored CME events are rated as equally satisfactory by the great majority of participants. Only in about 8% of the evaluation forms a commercial bias was noted, which had a negative impact on the educational value of the CME event. Thus, it seems most likely that the regulatory framework for accreditation is able to prevent large-scale commercial influence on CME events.

Roles and Responsibilities in the Provision of Accredited Continuing Medical Education/Continuing Professional Development

ABSTRACT The Cologne Consensus Conference 2015 has focused on “Providers in accredited CME[continuing medical education]/CPD [continuing professional development]”. As an outcome of the CCC 2015, the authors of this paper, who were part of the faculty, propose a contemporary definition of the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders involved in the different stages of planning, delivery and evaluation of CME/CPD.