Assessing the Effectiveness of a Grand Rounds CME Activity for Health-Care Professionals
- First Online:
The Lymphoma Research Foundation offers Grand Rounds continuing medical education (CME) activities on specific issues related to advances in the management of patients with lymphoma. The 2012 activity comprised interactive case studies presented by local lymphoma experts. A case-based survey was designed to assess whether the management choices of program participants are consistent with the evidence-based content of the CME activity. This survey was administered to participants 1 month after completion of the CME activity and also to a control group who did not participate in the educational program. Participants were more aware of the epidemiology of CD20-positive tumors than were controls and were more likely to appropriately diagnose primary mediastinal large B cell lymphoma (PMBCL), use evidence-based second-line therapy for PMBCL, and properly manage a patient with classic Hodgkin lymphoma that did not respond to standard therapy. Participants were also more confident than controls in their ability to interpret histology and cytogenetic testing for selecting an optimal treatment.
KeywordsCase vignette Survey Lymphoma
- 4.Cohen J (1998) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, HilldaleGoogle Scholar
- 6.Marinopoulos SS, Dorman T, Ratanawongsa N, et al. Effectiveness of continuing medical education. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 149 (Prepared by the Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice Center, under contract no. 290-02-0018.) AHRQ publication no. 07-E006. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
- 13.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2012) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Hodgkin lymphoma. V2. www.nccn.org. Accessed 15 May 2012
- 24.Velasquez WS, McLaughlin P, Tucker S et al (1994) ESHAP—an effective chemotherapy regimen in refractory and relapsing lymphoma: a 4-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol 12(6):1169–1176Google Scholar