The client, an accredited national professional organization of physicians, anticipated they would be able to create and implement a content review plan for 70+ CME programs to be held at their national conference. They expected to complete this task within 2 weeks from the time the content was received from faculty. The provider quickly realized that they did not have the internal resources necessary to develop, organize and manage the content review process on this large of a scale within this short time-frame. This resulted in the need for external resources to assist in this effort, to include the content review process.
Key: Vast network of clinical experts in many specialty areas
Through CME Peer Review’s vast network of content experts, the client had immediate access to 3rd party, conflict-free clinical subject matter experts who were able to evaluate the content relative to objectivity, balance, independence, commercial bias and scientific rigor. Furthermore, the client could include the peer review costs directly into the educational grant budgets, thereby not incurring any additional departmental costs for the service.
CME Peer Review established a designated portal on its secure web-based system, and asked the client to upload the content files as soon as they were received. CME Peer Review quickly assigned their available experts to the task of reviewing the content.
Using the ValidateCE™ tool, the experts were able to review and evaluate the content within the short time-frame required by the client.
Using CME Peer Review’s network of experts as an extension of their staff, the client was able to achieve their anticipated goals of reviewing and evaluating 100% of the content for 70+ CME activities within 2 weeks. In addition, the client had time to work with faculty to resolve potentially non-compliant issues prior to the start of the national conference.
CME Peer Review provided a cost effective solution that saved the client countless staff hours with no additional direct costs and provided more comprehensive data and reporting than internal staff auditors could provide.