Turns out the old adage “10 experts, 11 opinions” is fairly accurate. Recent research into Specialist HCP patterns of practice shows an incredible level of variability in how Doctors implement treatment plans. This pattern holds true, even in therapy areas with high levels of guidance and standards. Unfortunately, variability equates to problems with predictable and therefore, equitable, patient outcomes.
When you look at it through Kahneman’s lens of Noise and errors in professional judgment, it makes total sense why physicians would disagree on treatment plans – practitioners tend to rely on their gut instinct, even in the face of data that shows otherwise. And, when coupled with recent studies showing 83-93% of compensation incentive is based on volume rather than quality, it implies that judgment in treatment plans may not be optimal for the patient.
Unfortunately, the new data does not show what drives levels of consistency in patterns of practice – which I think – as a corollary to this data – would be remarkably helpful in determining how to drive more positive patient outcomes. Identifying what causes an HCP to prescribe according to data would be a wonderful first step.
Until those studies are done, our job is to attempt to assist with disseminating relevant, timely, and actionable clinical guidance. To do so, we should first make sure our KOLs are in agreement on what information is best to use and what are the best means to distribute it. Below is our take on a short process flow to do just that:
Phase 1: Measure KOL clinical practice relative to your product guidelines
A. Craft a qualitative and quantitative rubric to understand the consistency of how your KOLs implement clinical practices of your product.
B. During speaker training, KOL onboarding, or Ad Boards, run this rubric
C. Assess practice discrepancies and compare them to internal clinical guidelines
Phase 2: Assess KOL priorities and preferred messaging
A. During Ad Boards, or speaker programs, gather Atomic Statements related to treatment planning, messaging, and delivery.
- During Ad Boards, generate stand-alone Atomic Statements on practices, priorities, and preferences
- During Speaker programs, assess KOLs answers to Q&A, assess HCP comments during Q&A
- During all, ask KOLs and HCPs to indicate (qualitatively) their preferred format for clinical guidance.
B. Ask KOLs to rate and rank the Atomic statement
- During follow on Ad Boards, take gathered Atomic statements and ask for rating and ranking to assess the priority of information
- During follow on Ad Boards and Speaker programs, ask KOLs and HCPs to rate and rank their preferred forms of receiving clinical guidance.
Phase 3: Retool prioritization and delivery mechanisms to match data
What happens next?
We have a number of tools at Intempio to help you collect meeting data in a minimally intrusive, real-time format, giving you the data you need for better information delivery and the creation of authentic outcomes. We can pull together everything to deliver your meeting objectives using a proprietary blend of meeting technologies and techniques, either directly or in collaboration with your MedComms partners.
Let us help you in your digital journey.