Advancing Professional Development Through a Community of Practice: the New England Network for Faculty Affairs.

INTRODUCTION: In an era of competing priorities, funding is increasingly restricted for offices of faculty affairs and development. Opportunities for professional staff to grow and network through attendance at national meetings and to share best practices are limited. We sought to describe a community of practice established to enhance the professional development of faculty affairs professionals and to document its impact. METHODS: We outlined the process of formation of the New England Network for Faculty Affairs (NENFA), reviewed the pedagogical approaches to professional development, and surveyed members to evaluate the impact of NENFA on their activities, professional network and their institutions. RESULTS: After a successful 2011 initial meeting, NENFA created an organizing committee and conducted a needs assessment among potential members. NENFA's charter, mission, goals, and structure were based on survey results. NENFA's regional community of practice grew to 31 institutions and held 10 meetings over 5 years. Meetings have examined a faculty development topic in depth using multiple learning formats to engage participants from academic medical centers and allied professions. Results from a 2015 member survey confirmed the value of NENFA. Multiple members documented changes in practice as a result of participating. DISCUSSION: NENFA has been sustained by volunteer leadership, collaboration, and the value that the group has brought to its members. We propose that a "community of practice" offers an effective model for collaborative learning among individuals at different institutions within a competitive health care environment. We recommend that the approach be replicated in other regions.

Pharmaceutical speakers' bureaus, academic freedom, and the management of promotional speaking at academic medical centers.

Pharmaceutical companies routinely engage physicians, particularly those with prestigious academic credentials, to deliver "educational" talks to groups of physicians in the community to help market the company's brand-name drugs. Although presented as educational, and even though they provide educational content, these events are intended to influence decisions about drug selection in ways that are not based on the suitability and effectiveness of the product, but on the prestige and persuasiveness of the speaker. A number of state legislatures and most academic medical centers have attempted to restrict physician participation in pharmaceutical marketing activities, though most restrictions are not absolute and have proven difficult to enforce. This article reviews the literature on why Speakers' Bureaus have become a lightning rod for academic/industry conflicts of interest and examines the arguments of those who defend physician participation. It considers whether the restrictions on Speakers' Bureaus are consistent with principles of academic freedom and concludes with the legal and institutional efforts to manage industry speaking.