In the capricious world of healthcare and pharmaceutical development, perhaps no function is evolving more rapidly than Medical Affairs. The role of Field Medical, and especially that of Medical Science Liaisons, (MSLs) has perhaps evolved the most, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, with MSLs serving as increasingly critical conduits between headquarters Medial Affairs (HQ-Medical) and the external stakeholder community. As healthcare grows inexorably more complex, the need for effective and efficient collaboration between HQ and Field Medical is paramount. This partnership is not only essential for the successful dissemination of scientific information but also for ensuring that company strategies align with real-world medical needs and insights.
Healthcare and drug development are inherently interdisciplinary, requiring the integration of diverse expertise from clinical research, regulatory affairs, marketing, and medical affairs. MSLs, often possessing advanced scientific or medical degrees, operate at the intersection of these disciplines. They translate scientific data into practical knowledge that healthcare professionals can use to improve patient care. Conversely, they also relay critical insights from the field back to the company, informing clinical development and strategic decisions. This bidirectional flow of information is crucial for staying competitive and innovative in an industry where scientific advancements and regulatory landscapes are constantly shifting.
Effective collaboration hinges on several key factors. Firstly, robust communication channels must be established to facilitate seamless information exchange. This includes regular meetings and / or open “office hours” for field and HQ Medical to connect, clear reporting structures, and the use of flexible communication channels. Additionally, aligning goals and expectations is crucial. HQ leaders must ensure that MSLs are well-informed about the company’s strategic objectives, while also being receptive to the insights MSLs bring from their interactions with healthcare professionals.
Training and development are also critical components of this partnership. Continuous education ensures that MSLs are equipped to navigate complex interactions in the field. However, MSLs are often under pressure to minimize their time in office, so while education must be robust enough it ensure that field teams are well prepared, it must also be laser-focused to avoid overburdening Field Medical personnel with excessive administrative burden / office time; thus the educational curriculum should be co-developed and continually adjusted to balance these competing priorities.
While all the above is easily written, it can be very challenging to implement, so below are some elaborations of ways that HQ and Field Medical can better collaborate. While it’s unlikely that all these approaches would be viable in every organization, even implementing a few is likely to have a positive impact.
Make Field insight collection, analysis, and dissemination an ACTIVE process. Even the best insight is useless unless it’s shared and analyzed, yet in many cases MSL insights are simply collected then aggregate into large databases (where they may go largely unread), often formatted in a manner that makes searching / analysis by HQ challenging. Reports filled with insights may be emailed, but without active, intentional discussion and follow up, these reports may languish in a “to read” pile.
A robust insights process begins with establishing shared goals between those who collect the insights (mostly MSLs) and those who use the insights (mostly HQ), and these goals should be updated at least annually, ideally via one or more cross-functional workshops that occur early in the strategy planning cycle. A manageable list of Key intelligence topics / key intelligence questions (KITs / KIQs) should be co-developed via a dialog between HQ and Field and reasonable insight volumes should be set to avoid perversely incentivizing MSLs to submit large volumes of low-value insight.
Actionable insights should generally be prioritized, and there should be ongoing touchpoints (ideally monthly or at least quarterly) for MSLs and HQ to actively review insights together and identify actions, next steps, follow up, etc. While this process is initially more time consuming, by focusing on quality over quantity of insights, it tends to actually free up time in the field since MSLs don’t feel the need pump up their insight numbers. It also tends to produce more value and encourages closer collaboration between Field and HQ.
Bring Field Medical members into all stages of strategy planning. In many organizations there is a stated or implied demarcation that HQ sets the strategy and MSLs carry it out. However, this is a myopic approach that ignores the value and experience MSLs can bring to even the earliest strategy discussions, thus Field Medical should absolutely be involved in setting and refining overall Medical Strategy. The specific ways in which Field Medical can support overall strategy could be based on subject matter expertise (i.e. “Field Leads” for a specific products/therapeutic area serving as core members of Medical strategy teams) or relational (MSL supporting key institutions/HCPs supporting the development of relevant strategies) but they should be included in key working groups, workshops, and planning sessions as part of the core team.
The most common pushback to incorporating MSLs into strategy panning is that this takes them out of the field, but in the post-pandemic landscape, virtually all meetings are now conducted in a hybrid fashion, and virtual attendance eliminates much of the travel and commuting burden MSL once faced to participate in live HQ meetings. Furthermore, those MSL who help to co-develop strategy also help to better amplify, reiterate, and advocate key strategic pillars among their peers, ensuring more robust adherence.
Truly co-create Content. While many larger and midsize organizations rely heavily on vendors and dedicated internal teams to develop content such as slide decks, educational materials, and publications / presentation, MSLs can both benefit from and substantially contribute to the creation of high-quality content.
Field Medical colleagues are often the savviest about what types of content healthcare providers and other external stakeholders actually utilize, both in terms of content and delivery channel(s), thus input from Field from the earliest stage of content creation (i.e. concept proposal) is invaluable, and almost always leads to superior results.
During the development of content, MSLs / Field colleagues can provide valuable guidance to enhance accessibility and value to external stakeholders. Insights about what works in the field have become particularly valuable in an age when enhanced content (i.e. podcasts, infographics, Plan-Language Summaries, etc.) has become the norm, especially considering how expensive this type of content can be to produce and maintain. Lastly, MSLs / Field colleagues who may wish to explore other functions can benefit from working closely with the various HQ colleagues who help develop, review, and disseminate content.
While there is a necessary delineation of responsibility between HQ and Field Medical, it is undeniably beneficial to have robust and active partnership between HQ and field-based colleagues. By thoughtfully and compliantly seeking opportunities to closely collaborate, both HQ and Field benefit. As the industry continues to evolve, strengthening this partnership and adapting ways of working to become more fluid, accessible, and nimble will be key to navigating the complexities of the ever-evolving healthcare landscape and achieving lasting success.
About the author:
Christopher S. Bland, PhD, MBA
Christopher is a medical affair professional with over 15 years of experience in healthcare and cancer research. Over his career Chris has lead / supported over a dozen oncology drug launches, in disease states ranging from multiple myeloma to breast and prostate cancer.
Chris earned his Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Biology at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) and conducted postdoctoral research on mechanisms of HER2+ breast cancer treatment resistance at BCM and MD Anderson Cancer Center (both in Houston). He later completed his MBA at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, where he was recognized as a Key Corporate Incentive Program Scholar.
Chris is a Senior Medical Director at Pfizer and previously built out and led the oncology global medical affairs engagement team at GlaxoSmithKline, and worked in multiple field medical positions at Johnson & Johnson and MolecularHealth.
He and his family are active in pet rescue and pet therapy work; volunteering with their two cats, French bulldog, and parrot at various hospitals and healthcare facilities throughout the Philadelphia metro area.
Have an opinion on this article? Send a message to the editor.