If this box remains here for more than 30 seconds, click this link to try again.
Products & Services ╗
Download FREE Excerpt
20 Info Graphics
55 Data Graphics
6 Best Practices
Single User: Authorizes use by the person who places the order or for whom the order was placed.
Sitewide: Authorizes use of the report for a geographic site. All people at site can view the report for a year and copies can be printed.
Corporate: Authorizes use for the entire company for a year and copies can be printed. No limitations for usage inside the company.
This report will help incumbent companies to optimize their medical education capabilities, efficiency and effectiveness. An in-depth analysis of the industry shows that there is a core set of factors in successful medical education groups: structure and activities of the medical education function, effective levels of professional medical education staffing, the role of the medical education group in key activities (including involvement with thought leaders and professional societies) and resource allocation by region and program type.
Best Practices«, LLC’s report, Professional Medical Education Excellence: Structures, Resources, Services & Performance Levels to Optimize Medical Device Education Groups explores each of these aspects and provides a pharmaceutical segment as well as a data segment representing other industries.
This comprehensive benchmark report analyzes a broad range of medical education factors, and delivers qualitative and quantitative data on staffing, services, structures, investments and much more. Medical education leadership will benefit using this intelligence to evaluate their organization’s resource levels relative to other market leaders.
In addition, the study presents medical education leader’s perspective on the current and future trends and direction of medical education for field-based medical educators, technological changes and spending changes. It also includes insightful analyses on an array of pitfalls that can affect the medical education function, including the changing business environment and compliance management.
Health Care; Pharmaceutical; Diagnostic; Biotech; Consulting; Research; Medical Device; Chemical; Consumer Products; Orthopaedics
Abbott; Dendreon Corporation; Gilead Sciences; Epigenomics AG; Boehringer Ingelheim; Manthan Services; GlaxoSmithKline; Alcon Laboratories; Ipsen; Boston Scientific; Johnson & Johnson; Amylin; Laboratories Esteve; Bristol-Myers Squibb; MedImmune; Astellas; Medtronic; Celgene; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma; AstraZeneca; Novo Nordisk; Cephalon; Orthofix; Inc.; Pfizer; Baxter Healthcare; Regeneron; Cubist Pharmaceuticals; Roche; Bayer Healthcare; Sanofi-Aventis; EMD Serono; Shire; Biogen Idec; Smith & Nephew; Stryker; Takeda Pharmaceuticals; Zimmer
The medical education landscape for the device sector is a complex environment with new technologies, budget pressures and expanding global needs all combining to create challenges for education leaders. This timely study presents benchmarks across the critical operational aspects of medical education groups including, staffing, budgets, activity roles, technology applications, program development/deployment and geographical focus for programs/budget.
Best Practices«, LLC used both field surveys and interviews to complete this study. In all, 40 medical education leaders from 35 different companies from the pharmaceutical and medical device sectors contributed data. Participants included 14 medical education leaders from 10 medical device companies and 26 leaders from 25 pharma companies. In-depth interviews were conducted with veteran medical device leaders from four organizations.
In terms of geographic focus, Medical Education is uniquely positioned to help fuel organizations’ growth in emerging areas like China and India. Despite the growing revenue stream produced by emerging areas, device and pharma companies are devoting to Asia-emerging areas few of their total MedEd FTEs (device 7.5% vs. pharma 1.9%), few of their total MedEd programs (device 5.8% vs. pharma 1.4%) and relatively little of their total MedEd budget (device 6.4% vs. pharma 1.9%).