It sounds like a simple moment. For the medical education leader who eventually owns it, it isn't.

Behind that one sentence sits a set of questions that don't have easy answers:

• "I need more clinicians proficient on this technology." Not just aware of it. Not just interested in it. But are actually proficient and ready to use it independently.
• "I need better utilization of my faculty." The surgeons willing and able to teach are always in short supply, and they're always the busiest people in the room.
• "I need to support a launch." A new device, robotic platform, or procedure does not gain adoption on its own. Someone has to prepare clinicians within a launch timeline that will not wait.
• "I need more clinicians trained without doubling my budget." Every year the expectation is to reach more surgeons with the same team and the same dollars.
• "I need visibility into whether these programs are actually working." Attendance is easy to report. Whether a surgeon actually became proficient is a much harder question, and most organizations can't answer it well.
• "I need to make life easier for my field organization." Reps are in the OR every day. They see the need before anyone else does. But right now, surfacing that need and turning it into a scheduled, documented learning experience is its own project.

None of these are new problems. What's changed is the volume. More technologies. More specialties. More surgeons are expecting a faster path from interested to independent.

The Model Works. The Infrastructure Has not Caught Up.

A 2026 systematic review found that peer and near-peer instruction improved learner confidence and technical proficiency, with outcomes often comparable to faculty-led instruction for basic surgical skills. The question isn't whether clinical mentorship is valuable; it's whether organizations can make it easier for surgeons, clinicians, faculty, sales teams, and medical education teams to connect, collaborate, and learn from one another.

Yet the infrastructure supporting these programs often remains fragmented. Surgeon education teams may be coordinating faculty availability, learner requests, scheduling, credentialing and documentation across spreadsheets, email, and systems that weren't designed to work together. That fragmentation can make it difficult to understand where surgeons are in the training journey, fully utilize available faculty, and scale programs as new technologies reach additional sites and markets.

Turning that value into results depends on solving for:

• Knowing which faculty are available, and for what
• Matching the right learner to the right host at the right time
• Tracking credentialing, documentation, and compliance
• Giving a field rep a fast way to act on the opportunity
• Reporting program activity in a way that shows more than how many people showed up

That isn't a faculty problem or a curriculum problem. It's an infrastructure problem, and it shows up in every one of the six questions above.

Where a Platform Actually Helps

This infrastructure gap is part of the problem the IQVIA MedTech Surgical Collaboration Platform is built to address. The platform gives clinicians and education teams one place to see faculty availability, route and manage learner requests, track documentation, and measure program activity across the full clinician education journey. It won't replace faculty relationships or the rep who notices a surgeon is ready to learn something new. Rather, it removes the friction between those moments and a scheduled, tracked, repeatable learning experience, freeing education teams to spend more time answering the six questions that actually matter.

How much time does your team spend coordinating surgeon/clinician education?

If observerships, proctorships, faculty programs, and training requests are still managed using spreadsheets, email, and disconnected systems, it may be worth comparing your current process to how leading MedTech organizations are scaling peer-to-peer education.