What the medical science liaison role becomes in a Medical Affairs Omnichannel model

Most discussions of Omnichannel in Medical Affairs are about platforms, content and compliance. The people who notice the change first are the medical science liaisons. They are asked to log more, to follow up through channels they did not use before, and to work from a picture of the HCP that somebody else assembled. Done well, this makes their conversations better. Done badly, it turns a scientific role into an administrative one and HCPs notice.

This article describes what the liaison role becomes when Medical Affairs engages HCPs across channels, where the role gains, where it is at risk, and what Medical leadership has to decide so that the model serves the liaison rather than the other way round. It draws on Medical Affairs engagements in US biopharma and global pharma and on the published guidance of the Medical Affairs Professional Society.

Why does the liaison role change at all?

An HCP's scientific journey no longer starts or ends with a visit. A question raised at a congress may reach medical information by email, be followed by a liaison conversation, and continue on a medical portal. Each of these touch points was built separately, and in most companies they still are. The liaison sees only their own part.

When Medical Affairs connects the touch points, the liaison's conversation is placed inside a sequence. That is the whole change. What the HCP asked last month, what they were sent, what they opened and what remains open are now knowable before the meeting. The follow-up that used to depend on the liaison's own diary can be completed by medical information or by a digital channel. And the insight the liaison captures has somewhere to go. IQVIA's work on Medical Affairs Omnichannel engagement describes the same shift from disconnected content delivery to a connected scientific experience.

What does the liaison gain?

Three things, in the engagements where the model was designed with liaisons rather than for them.

• Better prepared conversations. The liaison arrives knowing the HCP's recent questions, the materials already shared and the topics still open. Meetings move to the scientific discussion sooner and repeat less.
• Follow-up that completes. A request for a publication, a referral to medical information or an invitation to a scientific session is handed to the channel best placed to deliver it, and the liaison sees when it was closed. The HCP experiences one Medical function rather than several.
• Insight that is used. Observations from the field reach medical strategy, evidence planning and medical information in a routine, rather than in a quarterly slide. Liaisons who see their insight acted on capture more of it.

Where is the role at risk?

The same connections that help can harm, and the harm appears in predictable places.

How does the boundary with Commercial apply to liaisons?

Industry codes allow Medical Affairs to exchange scientific information with HCPs, including in response to unsolicited questions, provided the activity is non-promotional and governed by Medical. The EFPIA Code in Europe and the IFPMA Code of Practice internationally both rest on that separation, and national codes add their own detail. In a single-channel world the boundary was kept by the person. A liaison knew what they could and could not do in a meeting.

In an Omnichannel model the boundary also has to be kept by the system. Which scientific interactions Commercial can see, whether a Medical email can follow a promotional one, how a liaison responds to a signal that originated in a Commercial channel, and who approves a journey that crosses the two functions are design decisions. Companies that leave them undefined put the liaison in the position of guessing, and the liaison's conversation is the one most likely to be scrutinized later.

What should the connected picture of the HCP contain?

Less than the platform can hold. A liaison needs to know what the HCP asked, what was sent, what is still open and which scientific topics the HCP has shown interest in. A liaison does not need, and under most privacy and code requirements should not have, a record of every digital action the HCP ever took or any information that originated in promotional channels. The HCP's consent for scientific communication governs what can be used, and it is recorded separately from consent for other purposes.

Medical teams that keep the picture small find two benefits. Liaisons read it, because it fits on one screen and answers the questions they would ask anyway. And Legal, Compliance and Privacy approve it, because the purpose of each data point is clear and the boundary with Commercial is visible in the design. A picture that grows with every new data source stops being read and starts being questioned.

What should liaisons be measured on?

The measures that work describe whether scientific needs are being met rather than how busy the liaison was. Among those Medical teams have accepted are how quickly and completely HCP questions are resolved, whether HCPs return with further questions or request a discussion, the share of captured insight that reached a medical plan within the quarter, and how consistently an HCP's scientific experience held together across the liaison, medical information and digital channels.

Contact counts, reach and frequency describe activity, and they are useful for managing capacity. As measures of a liaison's contribution they push the role toward volume and away from the long, well-prepared scientific conversation that HCPs value most. Measures designed for other functions, such as prescribing or share, are a compliance risk in themselves when applied to Medical.

What changes in how liaisons are led and coached?

Medical leadership has three new jobs. The first is to decide, with Legal and Compliance, what liaisons may see and do inside the connected model, and to say so plainly. The second is to coach liaisons on working from a connected picture of the HCP, which is a skill rather than a setting. The third is to protect liaison time. Every connected touch point creates a new request on the liaison's diary, and without rules on what reaches a liaison and what is resolved elsewhere the role fills up with follow-up.

Liaison teams that were involved in designing the journeys adopted the model faster and captured more insight than teams that received it finished. This matches a wider pattern across Omnichannel programs. Adoption follows ownership.

How does AI affect the liaison role?

AI is already used in Medical Affairs to summarize literature, draft responses to medical information requests and suggest which HCPs a liaison might contact next. Each use helps the liaison when the output is reviewed by a person, the reason for a suggestion is visible, and the liaison can decline it. Each use harms the role when suggestions arrive as a work list and the liaison's scientific judgement is treated as an exception.

The principle Medical leadership can hold to is that AI prepares the liaison and the liaison decides. A liaison who understands why a suggestion was made will act on more of them than one who is told to.

Where should Medical Affairs start?

Start with one scientific journey that liaisons recognize, such as a congress question that travels through medical information to a liaison discussion, and map it with the people who own each touch point. The map shows where questions are lost, what the liaison needs to know before a conversation and which follow-up could be completed elsewhere. It also gives Legal and Compliance a concrete journey to review, which is easier than reviewing a platform. The operating model, the platform requirements and the measures follow from that first journey far more reliably than from a list of channels.