What Makes an Expert?

As health care providers, we make significant efforts to improve our patients’ lives, decrease their pain, and enhance their healing. At the same time, many companies expend their energy, their research and development time and thought process, and their resources to help us in our efforts. They often come to us as individuals and as experts to help them develop a variety of technologies. Some of these technologies are novel and truly innovative, others are simply another good product much like something that is already on the market. After years of experience, dedication to our patients, evaluation of our methodology and algorithms, and development of best clinical practices, the companies often want to know our thoughts about the outcomes of their product(s). They may want to know how to develop their product better, enhance more patients’ healing potential, or explore other indications for their product(s).

These relationships between companies and experts come in many forms. For instance, sometimes institutions benefit from these relationships in that they have cutting-edge technology available for their patients, or at least those randomized to active therapy. This relationship usually occurs in the form of a prospective randomized trial. Sometimes these benefits come directly to us as individuals. Other times we may have significant clinical experience with the product and wish to discuss with the company how this experience can enhance the understanding and availability of the company’s product. These interactions can benefit current and future patients by providing novel insights and innovative therapies.

These relationships are in almost all cases mutually beneficial, developmental, and of benefit to patients as well as the rest of the parties involved, if managed correctly. We as experts must recognize, and make sure that companies understand, that the only way to be an expert (ie, “a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge or skill in a particular area”) is for us to use multiple products in specific categories for particular indications, and most importantly to be critical in our assessment of the efficacy and utility of those products. To be critical, we must have exposure to varied experiences within that product category.

To paint a better picture, an individual who is asked for their expert opinion on negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) must be exposed to more than one NPWT product. How can a person be an expert if they have only ever used one company’s device(s)? They could be an expert in that specific company’s device, but not on the topic of NPWT. Likewise, the clinician who has only used one brand of cellular, acellular, matrix-like products (CAMPs) cannot be an expert in overall CAMPs. I am sure the reader gets my point.

At times, companies ask the expert person not to provide other companies with their opinion, knowledge, or experience in that area of care. This is misguided and inappropriate. In the short run, it reduces the expert’s insight and knowledge to their field of expertise; in the long run, it probably has a negative impact upon patients, the dissemination of knowledge, and the academic pursuit of best outcomes in the smallest amount of time and at the lowest cost. We as professionals certainly understand and would never share proprietary information from one company to another, as this would be unethical or even illegal. However, it is our responsibility as wound medicine, wound surgery, wound nursing, wound therapy, wound healing, or wound care practitioners to remind companies when they are working with us that the only way we can be experts is for us to have access to all companies we think appropriate in the space in which we are delivering our knowledge, judgment, and thoughtful input.

Wishing you all the best in collaboration as we continue to develop better therapies for our patients with our amazing industry partners.  

John C. Lantis II, MD, FACS
Editor-in-Chief, Wounds
woundseditor@hmpglobal.com