€¦ · web viewahead of the september meeting tht and gs will prepare a few abstracts,...

EAHP – SC committee meeting, 16-17 January 2015

DRAFT MINUTES

Scientific Committee Meeting

VenueARCOTEL Kaiserwasser Wien

8-9 May 2015

AttendeesKees Neef (KN)(Chairman)Antonio Gouveia (AG)André Rieutord (AR) Anthony Sinclair (AS)Gunar Stemer (GS) Beata Horoszko (BH)Trine Kart Sørensen (TKS)Helena Jenzer (HJ)Thomas De Rijdt (TDR) Francesca Venturini (FV)Inese Sviestina (IS)Branislava Miljkovic (BM) Raisa Laaksonen (RL) Jennie De Greef (JDG)Ulrika Gillespie (UG)Despina Makridaki (DM)Ana Valladolid Walsh (AVW)Elizabeth Van Staeyen (Sponsorship Coordinator)Martina De Gregorio (Events Assistant)Doriana Dragomir (Junior Events Assistant)

ApologiesPascal Bonnabry (PB)Torsten Hoppe-Tichy (THT)

8 th May – Day 1

1. Welcome and apologies

KN opened the meeting by welcoming all and extended apologies for Pascal and Torsten.

2. Resignation from SC by Pascal Bonnabry

KN explained that PB has resigned from the SC and requested that current SC members propose new members. KN suggested an Irish hospital pharmacist, Eileen Butler, who was critical of the Barcelona congress and expressed that she may be a valuable asset during the preparation of the programme.

1


3. Review and approval of minutes and action items from the March SC meeting

The below action items had not yet been completed given the timeline to do so would be during the summer months.

ACTION ITEM: Ahead of the September Meeting THT and GS will prepare a few abstracts, previously rejected to review the abstract submission guidelines.

ACTION ITEM: Future abstract submissions and GPIs to be given a 350 - word limit including references. (to be done in preparation for 2015 submissions)

ACTION ITEM: EAHP office to promote that GPI submission will be open year round (pending new GPI database creation) – GA to vote on the budget for the proposed database.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to include in report to ACPE that Basic, Intermediate, Advanced are not applicable in EU because of the diversity of knowledge and experience between countries. (Sept 2015)- JDG

Facilitators’ reports: FV explained that some facilitators felt there was some confusion about the role of a facilitator in a seminar versus a workshop.

AG explained that it was helpful to debrief after the session. UG added that in Workshop 7 it was difficult to maintain the discussion, as the speakers prepared a short presentation and did not engage the participants in the discussion.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to add difference between workshop and seminar facilitation in facilitator guidance manual and distribute the manual to the new SC members.

JDG explained that conflict of interest information was requested prior to the Congress, as there were some speakers whose slides did not match their conflict of interest forms.

Below action items were completed.

ACTION ITEM: Review of the conflicts of interest to be added to January SC Meeting agenda, so that conflicts are reviewed at the appropriate time. The purpose of the review in March is to be aware of any updates.

ACTION ITEM: The EAHP office will add the location of the next Academy Seminar to promotional materials as soon as this is decided.

KN and the SC then approved the minutes of the March meeting.

4. Speaker Handbook

KN stated that he felt there were two issues: the number of indicated lines in the slides differs in the document: once it is mentioned 7 lines and the second time, 6 lines; the other issue was that the last page should be updated to say “Congress location” instead of the name of the city. The SC agreed the number of lines per slide should be 7.RL stated that “megabytes” is misspelled on page 11.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to make suggested changes to the speaker handbook.

2


FV asked if there was a minimum of questions that the speakers must ask for ACPE? JDG clarified that Synergy should have 3 questions but other sessions can have two. AR added that some of the speaker questions slow the sessions down and were not always relevant and emphasized that the questions should be of better quality. TK agreed that 9 questions takes approximately 7-10 minutes and AR and TDR added that it should be the role of the stakeholder to assess the quality of the questions. GS suggested that the questions should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. AR agreed and explained that this was done in the START/STOPP session and the shift in learning was clear. AS added that questions in the beginning of the session provide a point of focus for delegates during the sessions. JDG explained that questions serve as a measurement standard for Synergy satellite sponsors and these must be asked in order for sponsors to perceive the value of the session. With regards to the seminars and workshops, the green/red cards would be the most affordable way to measure learning outcomes without adding additional costs for voting pads. TDR: Are they relevant? Are they in line with the learning objectives? KN disagreed that if you are a stakeholder or facilitator, it is your task to determine these factors. KN concluded that the questions would remain 3 for Synergy and to gather feedback from sponsors about the quality of the questions. JDG proposed that in order to keep the format interesting for delegates, there could possibly be a roundtable debate. TDR explained that this could be interesting but the role of the moderator will be essential to its success but explained that it is not possible for every topic. The SC then agreed that this could be a potential format for Synergy. FV will be attending the ISPQR Congress in Milan and there will be a roundtable session so she can report back.

ACTION ITEM: FV will report back to SC regarding the roundtable session during the ISPQR congress.

5. Quality of scientific programme. Review of Hamburg participants' evaluations and observations from the congress

The SC reviewed the Hamburg participants’ evaluation and determined that sessions rated below 3.2 should be improved.

JDG mentioned that many copies of the evaluation forms are printed, however, the number of completed forms received are few. As this generates much wasted paper, she then suggested that a post-congress learning assessment be sent to delegates.

TK suggested that this could potentially be integrated into the app. JDG then added that since Bayer sponsors the app, it was uncertain whether they had access to the data. AR said there should be a prize drawing for completing the information. The SC agreed that future congresses should eliminate the paper forms.

ACTION ITEM: EAHP office to investigate electronic options for evaluation form completion.

6. Review of Hamburg facilitators' reports

KN suggested to make the pdfs of the evaluations available and send, as the excel sheet is not accessible.

GS asked to streamline this process online as well and send out a survey rather that paper forms.

ACTION ITEM: The secretariat to put together all facilitator evaluation forms and distribute the pdf document.

3


ACTION ITEM: For future congresses, the secretariat will send out the facilitator form, so that the facilitators can still take notes on the printed copies and know what to keep in mind. The final evaluation forms, however, would still need to be filled in online (survey).

FV: asked what the meaning of gap analysis was and what the difference was between that and “space for improvement”. KN explained that there might be things that need improving, but they are not gaps per se.

Targeted drugs Synergy was not well attended and JDG suggested that this was a result of the early barcoding session and suggested that future Synergy satellites could potentially be held as workshops as these are very popular.

AR added that the workshops should be kept small despite the popularity. JDG suggested that workshops could be run 3 times instead of 2 and the facilitator can explain that the session is full and participants can be directed to the next session.

FV explained that real workshops that require working in groups need to be kept small with sessions for 20-25 people. They are different from an “interactive session” where a lecture takes place and these types of sessions can have up to 70 participants. AR stated that even though these aren’t real workshops, they could be very interactive and engaging. JDG agreed and suggested that these could be a Synergy offering.

AS explained that these types of sessions offer delegates access to experts in a certain field that they would not typically have.

ACTION ITEM: THT to send his facilitator report to EAHP office.

IS asked how to differentiate the winners of the posters if there’s a tie. KN suggested finding something to differentiate them.

7. Vienna Programme (Discussion on the Vienna programme to continue on Saturday morning if needed)

Keynote 1: (AR)- The proposed speakers confirmed, if the SC accepts.

Speaker 1:Vincent Dumez- University of Patients in Montreal (not a pharmacist)Speaker 2: Marie-Claire VANIER Associate clinical professor at the Faculty of pharmacy of Université de Montréal and as pharmacist at the Family Medicine Teaching Clinic of Cité de la Santé de Laval (CSL) Hospital

How you use the patient to develop a curriculum, involve the patient improvements/clinical trials etc. Speakers will focus on partnerships in the context of pharmacy.

Keynote 2: (was Pascal)Pascal suggested Prof. Christian Lovis but he has not yet confirmed. TDR agreed to be the stakeholder for this session.

ACTION ITEM: TDR to contact Pascal for additional details about the session.

Keynote 3: (KN)FV suggested Luca Pani, the director of Italian Medicines Agency (pharmacology) who works with EMA.

KN suggested director of Dutch evaluation board, Bert Leufkens, who was also a speaker in Maastricht.

4


ACTION ITEM: KN to contact Bert Leufkens to confirm.

P1: ASAS explained to focus on patients once they have left the hospital and that he is still looking for someone who would be a good fit.

KN added that there is a Parkinson’s group and patients can take the lead and design their own file on the internet and can be coached.

P2: BHRecommended Michael Scott from Belfast. He was a driving force in integrated medicines management in UK and Ireland. The second one would be a technician from Birmingham hospital. AS to suggest the most fitted one in the coming days.

P3: ARAR will ask Audrey Janoly-Dumenil (pharmacist) if she knows a physician who treats patients who have multiple sclerosis and emphasized that a physician and pharmacist should speak to discuss the clinical pathways. TK has a speaker suggestion if not possible.

P4: AVWAVW had a suggestion and AS explained that she was a clinical pharmacist and then transitioned to academia so she has been out of practice. RL then explained that many of the congress delegates are academics and these types of speakers are interesting to them.

UG suggested a speaker from Sweden, who can show that the sharing of the lists does not solve the problem. It might be a step in the right direction, but not the final solution.

KN added that the Academy seminar on Medicines Reconciliation takes place in September and there may be a speaker there who would be beneficial for the session.

FV: Focus of TG/LO is on the type of information. However, you need the human element of interpretation as well.

ACTION ITEM: “Departments” to be removed from the abstract title. ACTION ITEM: All abstracts are needed by the end of May for the 2nd announcement. ACTION ITEM: SC to provide the final abstracts and titles by the September SC meeting.

P5: RLConfirmed speakers are both hospital pharmacists and will be talking about medication reviews and research and the differences between pharmacists and nurses in clinical medicines review.

T1: KCNo speaker information available. AVW had a speaker suggestion for a Spanish hospital pharmacist involved in e-health and m-health and has sent the CV to KC.

ACTION ITEM: KC to send speaker recommendations

T2: PBIS volunteered to facilitate. AR suggested Prof. Cassagnes, a cardiologist who developed a programme for patients to weight themselves and then the programme provides alerts to physicians depending on the results obtained.

5


T3: TKSophie Renet is confirmed to speak, who worked in a cancer network and developed e-learning tools for patients taking oral chemotherapy. There are approx. 400 patients involved in clinical trials.

TK contacted a Danish professor for speaker recommendations.

KN then suggested that TK contact BMJ as they are involved in e-learning platforms. TK: wants the second speaker to be able to tell when to use and when not to use e learning, and not do just an introduction. JDG: to send TK the details for BMJ, just in case.

T4: HJHJ wants to approach from 2 perspectives: those in favour and those critical of clinical decision support. HJ has a speaker lead from UZ Leuven and will contact him again. KN suggested Anna Marie Scheepers, who is a PhD student who introduced clinical roles.

T5: TDRNathialie Moerman is confirmed. TDR suggested Andras Vermes to speak regarding preparation and is awaiting his confirmation.

PH1: GSBoth speakers have confirmed.

PH2: AGUG suggested a speaker who works in investigation of cancer care who could offer an interesting perspective on horizon scanning (Joachim Gullor (sp).). Would like to have speaker who gives an overview of every step in the process (from diagnosis onward).

AG explained that he would like to have an oncologist as a speaker who could offer insight on pharmacotherapy.

FV had a suggestion of a speaker, someone from a group of cancer treatment, who follow patients from beginning to end. She sent the CV to AG.

PH3: THTNo information available.

ACTION ITEM: THT to provide speaker suggestions.

PH4: FVFV suggested Guido Pante (sp) and requested speaker suggestions for someone who is a hospital pharmacist teaching in advanced therapies. The first speaker can talk about advanced therapy and regulation and the second speaker can talk about what hospital pharmacists do and do not know about advanced therapy.

KN added that Arnold Vulto works in advanced therapy within the academic context and can discuss how difficult it is to implement.

TDR suggested that there is not enough expertise on the subject to teach it. JDG suggested that FV contact David Witmer from ASHP for speaker recommendations

ACTION ITEM: JDG to send FV the contact of David Witmer.ACTION ITEM: FV to contact David Witmer for speaker recommendations

6


PH5: BMBoth speakers confirmed.

Workshops:JDG explained that the workshops would need to have a predetermined number of participants. GS requested that no more than 30 participants attend WK3.

W1: will now be an “interactive session” (HJ)Marc Dooms is confirmed.

W2: Antonella confirmed. This will be a real workshop.

W4: will now be an “interactive session” (PB) TK to be the new stakeholder TK will contact speaker from Copenhagen

W5: will now be an “interactive session” (AR). Title changed to “Dynamic clinical pathway management”The speaker, Virginie Fortineau, is confirmed. Topic is relatively new so AR suggested that it be an interactive session.

AR requested that change management be incorporated into the title of WK5. AS then suggested the title of “Dynamic clinical pathway management”.

W6: ARIt will be a real workshop with no more than 20 people.AR advised all that he was looking for a patient as well as a patient expert in therapeutic education. Suggestion: Simona Hald. JDG suggested a patient speaker from the shortages event and will provide AR with details.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to provide AR with details for patient representative from the shortages launch. ACTION ITEM: JDG to rearrange the room distribution for workshops and interactive sessions.

a. Overview of programme b. Review of the abstracts, learning objectives not presented during the March meeting

Seminar 4: JDG suggested “the hospital pharmacist “

Seminar 6: Learning objective: “Pharmacogenetic variance” removed. Added “genetic variance on pharmacokinetics”.

Seminar 7: Only one learning objective.

AG added that the teaching goals are directed to the speakers and are not relevant to the delegates. JDG then added that the teaching goals could be removed from print materials.

ACTION ITEMS: EAHP office to remove Teaching Goals from programme materials and web site.

Seminar 11:-1st learning objective removed-2nd learning objective – “prevent addiction to” changed to “prevent dependence on”-3rd learning objective- “To appreciate and address the strengths…”

7


Seminar 14: -3rd learning objective updated and now reads “Meet examples of successful integration of pharmacy information and levels of care with other healthcare stakeholders”

Seminar 15: RL revised the TGs and LOs.

Keynote 1:1st Learning objectives- “patient partner” changed to “patient partners”2nd Learning objective- “this new vision” removed and changed to “Recognize the opportunities for hospital pharmacists to develop new approaches in…”

Keynote 3:Learning objective: “get” changed to “acquire”

Workshop 1 is now “interactive session”: HJMarc Dooms reshaped the abstract from Barcelona to fit within the scope of partnerships and technologies. HJ explained that the suggested title of “partnerships and technologies” isn’t appropriate as it is just the congress title.

Linked to section 1 of the statements

ACTION ITEM: JDG to contact Marc Dooms and provide instructions for making the session a workshop.

Workshop 2The SC linked the workshop to sections 1, 4, 5

Workshop 4-The SC linked the workshop to sections 1-“Robotized “ changed to “robotic systems”

Workshop 5:Title changed to “Dynamic clinical pathway management”

c. Speakers

• Update on confirmed speakers

• Swisslog and Cardinal Health interest in speaker roles

JDG explained that she was approached by Swisslog and Cardinal Health (automation) requesting whether they could offer speakers in this area.

KN said we will keep this in mind in the future if there are speakers needed in this area.

• Review of speaker database AS suggested that EAHP include a rating of speakers in the database as a reference for future events. JDG explained that this is just a tool for SC members to use to find potential speakers. AG suggested that EAHP include a database of past speakers along with a rating based on the evaluation forms.

ACTION ITEM: EAHP Staff to create a list of all past speakers.

8


e. UKCPA to run sessions at the Congress

KN explained that UKCPA would like to contribute to the congress and agreed that it may be beneficial for the future work of EAHP and act as a knowledge source of continuing education rather than a partner of the congress. AS then explained that if we badge a seminar with an organizational name then it would be necessary to do this for all organisations and it might become a precedent. FV then added that EAHP could request speakers from the organisation but would need to evaluate them in the same way that that the organisation would be evaluated.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to send a message to UKCPA to thank them and notify them of potential future interest, that they would be better suited for EAHP postgraduate learning programmes. And that if they are found suited as speakers for future congresses, they will be kept in mind. f. Highlights session

JDG explained that a decision was needed on whether the highlights sessions would continue. AG has contacts in Saudi Arabia and Brazil who he can contact.

KN explained that EAHP invited countries to participate in these sessions and suggested that this session be discontinued, as there has not been a reaction from the countries. He stated the session is not so relevant, and as this would be extra work for the SC meetings. KN will inform the board about the change.

ACTION ITEM: KN will inform the EAHP board about the discontinuation of the highlights session.

AR suggested that this session could be replaced by the GPIs.

Everyone agreed.

ACTION ITEM: JDG will replace highlights time-slot with the GPI oral presentations.

g. Student programme and timing (SC Member as stakeholder)

JDG explained that the students requested the session be split into 2 parts and the SC agreed that the programme would remain a 4-hour time slot with a short coffee break.

BM will be the stakeholder.

h. Industry satellites

JDG informed that so far none of the satellites were sold as sales start after the May SC meeting once the programme has been finalised.

i. Needs assessment survey based on statements

JDG explained that participants had to choose which section of the statements for which they were most interested and then selected a statement based within the section. The programme of the following congress should be developed based on the feedback of the needs assessment survey.

KN requested that the most followed topics be placed in XMind in preparation for Saturday’s meeting. JDG then explained that the SC should also consider whether there is an important topic within the survey which received low interest but DM then agreed that perhaps respondents did not express interest in some

9


important areas because it is simply something that they do not know. Therefore, there should be careful consideration of these areas as well.

FV explained that you must broaden your thinking and link compounding and clinical pharmacy together as they are linked to one another under the umbrella of hospital pharmacy.

KN explained that the main goal in the organisation of congresses is to highlight the importance of the multiple roles of the pharmacists.

j. Code of conduct for Scientific Committee members

KN explained that there is a code of conduct for SC members, which must be signed, and SC members who are approached by industry to speak at an industry satellite must approach the SC at least 6 months prior to the event for approval.

GS expressed that it should be possible for SC members to speak at industry satellite symposia. JDG then proposed that it could be possible to make this request up until the November SC meeting. However, based on the COD, EAHP board, SC, and EAHP staff are permitted to speak at an industry satellite with approval from the EAHP board, SC and OC.

KN suggested that should a SC member be asked to speak during an industry satellite taking place during the congress, he/she must notify the SC no later than the November SC meeting. A poll would then be circulated to all SC members after which the board would be notified and asked for approval.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to add to board meeting agenda and vote at GA if approved.

k. Suggestion by Cornelia Vetter-Kerkhoff to hold active discussion groups with poster authors (moderated)

KN asked the SC how the posters for this session would be selected?JDG added that in her opinion, this would already be covered in the additional poster walk to take place from 8-9 on Thursday morning.

AR explained that after the first selection of abstracts, there are typically 60 that are possible nominees. Those 20 remaining could potentially make a short presentation. He said the poster walk should consist of 2-minute presentations followed by a few questions, before moving to the next one.

TK suggested that the presented abstracts could be selected based on statements and could generate discussion.

TDR added that it may be too complicated to create and moderate an additional session and the additional poster walk will create some additional discussion.

JDG suggested that a honourable mention category be added to those posters which were possible nominees. She also suggested that instead of a Thursday morning poster walk; the poster walk could be added to a time slot on Wednesday evening after the Get together reception.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to move the poster walk from Thursday morning to the time slot after the get together reception on Wednesday evening and to come up with a marketing strategy for that.

10


l. Method of checking that posters were displayed & cancellation policy

JDG explained that authors normally check in with hostesses and not all posters were checked off in Hamburg. She added that the congress photographer would take pictures of the rows in the future so that we can determine which posters were hung. This would be done Thursday morning. AG explained that the hostesses seemed confused about how they should search for the poster in a list.

JDG then added that 1 week prior to the congress, the EAHP office could send a message to the poster authors with the number and section, which should be presented to the hostesses. TDR then added that there should be a floor plan with the location by number and JDG agreed that these could be printed and distributed to delegates by the hostesses. AVW proposed e-posters for the GPIs. UG expressed concern that delegates would not view as many posters if they were digital.

ACTION ITEM: EVS to send additional poster author message 1 week prior to congress with section title and number.

ACTION ITEM: The official Congress photographer to take pictures of the missing posters on Thursday morning.

m. Synergy Programme and potential interest from MSD

JDG explained that the Thursday evening Synergy time-slot should no longer be a possibility as the breakfast was so successful that participants were tired after such a long day. She then suggested that the SC review the existing Synergy abstracts and determine whether some of these topics can be developed into workshops that could be added into the programme. KN questioned whether Synergy programmes could run during the same time slot. FV added that the barcoding session was popular because it is a popular topic. JDG added that these workshops would offer hands on interaction and this has been very popular with Pfizer’s leadership workshop even though it is not part of the Synergy programme. KN then proposed that the SC reviews the topics and determines which can be sold as workshops.

FV commented that #3 (adherence) is the only topic that could be developed into a workshop. AG added that any of the pharmacotherapy sessions could be developed into a Synergy session which could also become a quick course for future events. TK suggested that this is not a workshop but an interactive session.

Pascal’s abstract (automation in hospital pharmacy) was then taken by AVW and TDR.

KN suggested that sterile compounding facilities (AR) and compounding facilities- construct or contract (TDR) could potentially be a workshop as it was also a topic of the BEAM summit.

JDG asked if there were any Synergy abstracts that could absolutely not be successful if conducted as a workshop? The SC agreed that antimicrobial pipeline and implantable medical devices would be difficult to turn into a workshop. JDG to offer sponsor option to run the session as a workshop. SC agreed that these sessions could also be run during the same time slot. TK added that as a participant, you choose what it is interesting. JDG explained that industry would not want to sponsor a session if it is competing with too many other synergy sessions.

ACTION: JDG will rearrange the Vienna programme to allow one synergy session to run during each time slot. The regular synergy programmes will still be kept (Wednesday and Thursday morning).

Potential interest from MSD. KN explained that he finds that the proposal suggests that EAHP have an advisory committee position and to propose that JDG contact MSD to thank them for their interest and

11


explain that if they want a closer connection then they need to pass this to the board as there is a programme in place for industry interaction. TDR added that although there is room for a Synergy satellite on biosimilars, it would potentially seem as EAHP is promoting a specific product and the proposal is too commercial. KN added that the SC does not want direct contact with pharmaceutical industry. JDG agreed and explained that Richard Price had suggested presenting the proposal to the SC.

AG suggested that EAHP inform them that the topic is not in line with EAHP policy.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to contact MSD and inform them that it is not possible and provide other options such as the partnership packages and/or Synergy.

9 th May – Day 2

AS explained that there have been some debates over the English language in terms of session titles and questioned “what is the purpose of the title?”. There are 3 areas to consider in terms of titles:

1.) Is the English correct?2.) Jargon: to whom does it communicate? If a session is high level, the words can reflect that. However, should jargon be included in a basic session? Is jargon wanted?3) Does it make sense to everyone? People will look at the title to determine which sessions to attend.

JDG and AS to have a teleconference and recommend changes to the titles. AS explained that titles don’t always seem quite right. RL added that the changes would not likely be so great that the meaning of the abstract would

change. HJ added that the session titles should be as precise as possible. TDR agreed that English should be correct but the most important aspect is the content, but the

content in the title should be more important than an attractive title. JDG clarified that the title should accurately reflect the content of the seminar. TK explained that when she started, there was typically one speaker from academia and one speaker

from practice. GS said that the abstract is just as important as the title. AG explained that people from around the world understand differently the seminar titles and there

are sometimes excellent sessions with titles that can be interpreted as boring. GS suggested that instead of brainstorming keywords, the SC should consider brainstorming

teaching goals. JDG explained that the May meeting has now been shortened and suggested that in the future,

there should be 2 full days for the meeting. KN suggested that instead of extending the May SC meeting, the January meeting should be

extended. AG added that he would prefer to start the meeting early in the morning instead of mid-morning.

It was then agreed by the scientific committee that SC members could arrive for the January meeting on Thursday and the meeting could begin at 8 am on Friday.

RL questioned whether September could be a better alternative, as it may be difficult to remember a May conversation in January. JDG agreed that the September meeting should be extended. All agreed to extend the September meeting.

ACTION ITEM: JDG and AS to review proposed session titles.

12


ACTION ITEM: JDG to establish timeline for deliverables per SC meeting, and make a planning for the whole year in order to know what needs to be prepared for each meeting, and then decide on the length of the meetings.ACTION ITEM: JDG to extend September meeting plans with arrival by SC members on Thursday evening with Friday morning meeting start time of 08.00.

8. Review of the 2015 abstracts and GPIs' submission process

ACTION ITEM: JDG to create internal SOP for abstract submission.

9. Abstract submission for newcomers

GS said that this agenda item was based on author complaints and will be addressed during the September meeting. He said it was an internal issue, so that everyone judges the abstracts in a similar way.

10. Congresses - ASHP Mid-Year meeting and review

JDG explained that the feedback was that hospital pharmacists’ roles should address the role of the HP outside of the hospital pharmacy as well. The Board recommended conversation with PGEU and other organisations. JDG suggested that Richard Price contact PGEU and other stakeholders to determine interest.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to have RP contact PGEU and others to discuss involvement in future projects, along with SC member.

11. Academy Seminar

a. Updates on the Academy Seminar 2015 on medication reconciliation: programme – HJ

HJ explained that a speaker resigned and Fatma Karapinar from the Netherlands was proposed by KN. HJ thinks the title is the right one and has the opportunity to discuss procedure from admission up until discharge. Medication reconciliation is a short process and should be extended and there should be more time with the patient. The block in the afternoon for the first day will be covered by the Swedish delegates. In the morning it is not quite clear who will present what. HJ suggested Fatma give overview of challenges of med rec. Workshops will take place on Day 2 and will begin with a plenary discussion. The 2015 Academy Seminar will discuss medicines reconciliation but having a second part in 2016 is optional and will depend on the outcome of the 2015 Seminar.

Session day 1: AS asked whether systematics” was needed in the title? The SC agreed to change the title to “Systematic approach and challenges”. Also “systematic patient interviewing” was changed to: “Structured patient interviewing”

ACTION ITEM: MDG to change title in ACA programme. b. Part 2 on Medication Review (2016 or 2017)

KN explained that the second session would preferably have the same participants and would address the medication review process.

AS: If participants attend do they receive accreditation? JDG confirmed that these sessions are ACPE accredited.

13


UG: Medication reconciliation is a large topic and there will not be enough time to get into detail about optimization and review. Not only on admission, but in every transition of care.

KN then explained that the review would be mentioned during the first session. However, it will not be worked on in detail.

JDG recommended that the session be done in consecutive years so that the same participants can attend.

TK asked if the participants really needed to be the same.

FV explained that from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult to have the same people attend. It depends from which country the delegate comes from.

JDG suggested checking with presidents if the same person handles the review and the reconciliation.

The SC agreed that it would be up to the country whether to send the same person in both years, however, it would be suggested that the same people attend if the same people manage both the reconciliation and review.

ACTION ITEM: KN to report recommendation to have the second part to the board.

c. Future development of Academy Seminars

- stronger relation to the EAHP statements and CTF; KN explained that all activities are now being linked to the statements.

- further examination of how national dissemination of learning can be assured; - restrict numbers of national attendees to two; JDG explained that the decision was based on the

budget.- requesting stronger evidence of dissemination activity (e.g. national workshop agendas etc.) KN

explained that attendees to the seminars are obligated to disseminate the information in their countries. Country report format is new and will require proof of an agenda or other materials to show that the knowledge was disseminated.

- precise communications to members on person specification and why dissemination is considered so important to EAHP;

- EAHP taking formal ownership of presentation slides for the purpose of creating e-learning packages.

HJ mentioned that EAHP does not do webinars, etc. For future educational activities, she suggested to introduce other educational programmes, such as webinars.

GS reported that dissemination is important but difficult on a national level because the participant to the previous Academy seminar only gave an overview of what was presented. He requested that during the Academy Seminar, there should be some examples to provide delegates with some guidance of how to disseminate the information. He also recommended taking 30 minutes and offering guidance, not about what is being presented, but how to do it.

FV then explained that Petr Horak entered some information about how to disseminate the information to delegates.

HJ explained that the delegates received a take home package of the most relevant slides.

14


DM explained that in Greece, after attending the BEAM Summit, they did 2 sessions for 30 people. For the Academy Seminar, they have a session in the Greek congress presented by the attendants of the Academy Seminar. This year it was a 3-hour seminar. They have the 3 speakers, and 2 specialists. Now they are working on 2 further sessions: one in Crete and one in central Greece.

KN: it might be wise to incorporate the dissemination idea into the seminar and to contact national member presidents to let them know that they should allow time for members to disseminate the information. He suggested introducing that during the opening, in a 30-minute session.

ACTION ITEM: MDG to amend ACA seminar programme with the first point being “Dissemination of information learned”.ACTION ITEM: KN to advise GA of possible dissemination methods.

12. 2017 Programme

a. Selection of 2017 theme (XMind)

TK suggested including the perspective of stakeholders in the brainstorming process. FV then added that instead of adding 2 SC members from the local countries, perhaps there could be

2 additional SC members such as a doctor or nurse, who could offer a different perspective. AS questioned whether or not there are patterns/themes that are more popular than others. TDR added that the topics are very similar from year to year but the perspectives will change. He

then explained that the SC would have to anticipate what the hot topics would be in 2017 (fusions of hospitals, etc.).

AS added that in the future, new roles, new health strategies, new educational models will be important.

HJ added that natural sciences remain similar but the settings are continuously changing and it is the role of the SC to anticipate new trends and how the role will change.

FV said that in Italy, there are not only pharmacists at the national congress but also other healthcare professionals outside of the hospital pharmacy.

GS likes the idea of bringing in other health professionals and it needed to be communicated to them in advance the type of perspective wanted. Brainstorming must be more structured.

JDG reviewed attendance and highlighted that the most popular sessions have “patient” or “patient safety” in the title.

AS suggested to identify attendance by congress theme and future thinking. KN asked whether to try to link congress content to the statements or try to link statements to the

content. FV stated that CTF will be a hot topic and a general theme could potentially be pharmacy education. AS then suggested “Innovation” as a session (new roles/strategies) GS explained that added value of the hospital pharmacy is another important factor (i.e. Showing

evidence to decision makers. How do hospital pharmacists prove their value?) KN suggested integration (seamless care, interface pharmacy) AG explained that patients are being moved out of hospitals and “getting out of the hospital” will be

important. As the hospital becomes a smaller part of care, what will the role of hospital pharmacists be now?

TK suggested “The hospital pharmacist getting out of the hospital pharmacy”. It is not only about interface pharmacy, but training nurses and patients, etc. It involves taking hospital pharmacy competencies out of hospital pharmacy.

TDR suggestion: “HP- breaking down the walls”

Keyword themes: see excel sheet and XMind pdf from JDG.

15


Proposed themes to be presented to the board:

Hospital pharmacists designing the best point of careHospital pharmacists breaking down the wallsHospital pharmacists - new strategies for new needsHospital pharmacists - catalysts for changeHospital pharmacists planting the seeds for change

b. call for abstracts (as already discussed during review of abstract submission process) c. preliminary programme

13. ACPE-SOP sent to ACPE along with needs assessment report

In September JDG must report update of how EAHP evaluated the needs assessment. DP created a document to address how delegates’ needs were met and how this contributes to the EAHP educational mission and goals.

KN suggested that the SC list the needs in the XMind document and illustrate that these needs were taken into account with the planning for the 2017 event. He suggested including the specific items from the survey when designing the programme for the upcoming congresses. The document will be prepared by the office and approved by the Scientific Committee.

JDG confirmed that the deadline for ACPE is 1 October.

ACTION ITEM: Figures to be added to the existing report

14. Request from Italian University (Francesca)

FV explained that the University of Camerino organises a Master in Hospital Pharmacy management, which is a requirement for Italian HPs to be hired as hospital pharmacy directors. They are thinking about running the programme in English and developing a programme at a European level and possibly in other cities as well. The issue was discussed at last year’s May meeting. Carlo Cifani recently visited Roberto Frontini, who referred him to the SC. The programme has not started yet (proposed to start in march 2016) and the idea is to get endorsement from EAHP as it relates to CTF. The university requested speakers from the EAHP and recommendations for other sites for programmes. FV suggested that a few SC members volunteer to keep the connection to the programme. The programme consists of 40 participants (175 hours), it required travelling and the fee is 5000 euro. Most students either get sponsorship from industry or from hospitals.

GS explained that if industry provides support on an Italian level then that doesn’t mean that it would support students on a European level.

KN added that it is a good point to have this on the agenda but still feels that it is too early. If he looks at the process, this might be a part of a programme that EAHP could potentially accredit in the future. EAHP does not yet have an accreditation programme. He suggested that if there are SC members interested, they can follow the course and can report back.

JDG suggested that EAHP request the materials that are being taught in English and have this provided to the CTF competence mapping working group to see if they agree with what is being taught.

FV added that the English course materials have not yet been developed.

16


RL is head of the Finnish accreditation programme. Not a part of the working group but will put a name forward (Hanna Tolonen) for CTF.

KN recommended that FV send the available materials to the CTF mapping group. Once the programme is completed and translated into English, the EAHP office will put the link on the EAHP website.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to add Finland (Hanna Tolonen) to CTF working group after the May meeting.ACTION ITEM: FV to send available programme materials to CTF mapping working group.

15. Next SC meetings

· 19 September 2015: 8.00 - 17.00 (Brussels - Sheraton Airport Hotel) · 6-7 November 2015: 8.00 – 18.30 on the 6th, 8.00 – 17.00 on the 7th (Brussels- Radisson EU Blu hotel) · 15 - 16 January (11.00 - 18.00 on 15th and 09.00 - 14.00 on 16th) · 15 March 2016: Vienna congress 17.30 - 19.30

ACTION ITEM: The May meeting will take place on 20-21 May 2016. Location will be determined as the Cannes film festival will be taking place. Nice suggested as alternative location and JDG will research. If not possible to hold meeting in Cannes or Nice, the May SC meeting will take place in Brussels.

16. Any other business

Speaker briefing – JDG reported that she had been notified by COVR that not many speakers attend the briefings.. JDG then questioned whether these are necessary. TK mentioned that the room should make an impression and there was no coffee break in the faculty room.

JDG suggested that if the speaker preview room is too full, could the facilitators meet the speakers in the cyber café? GS said the cyber café was too noisy and he preferred a larger room.

JDG confirmed that all but 5 of the presentations were received early with the new honorarium forms.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to make sure that free flow coffee is served in the faculty room.

ACTION ITEM: JDG to provide a larger speaker preview room in the congress centre. The room needs to have space for about 10 people sitting down.

ACTION ITEM: MDG to send the presentations to both the facilitators and the stakeholders of each session.

17

€¦ · web viewahead of the september meeting tht and gs will prepare a few abstracts,...

Documents