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

Abstract

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).