P Fletcher1. 1. East Gloucestershire NHS Trust, Delancey Hospital, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL53 9DU, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: "Consultants' continuing medical education (CME) activity is variable." Is this true? What part do prompts and constraints play? OBJECTIVE: To identify the CME activity of 80 district general hospital consultants from 27 specialties and all nine Royal Colleges. What do they do and why? What constrains them? What are their views on CME as a basis for revalidation? METHOD: A cross-sectional survey using a structured questionnaire derived from a content validity exercise, a pilot study and structured interviews. RESULTS: Of the 74 consultants who replied (92.5%) most claim to be spending sufficient time (defined by their College) undertaking a variety of internal and external CME. They do so through methods such as reading, discussion with colleagues, and teaching, which are not universally recognized by their Colleges. The majority declared most CME activity to be in their subspecialty rather than in their wider clinical or non-clinical roles. Least popular was non-clinical professional development. The majority knew how much CME they should be undertaking and all but one claimed to be doing so. Prompts were personal rather than organizational or external, while constraints centred on finding time. CME activity as a basis for re-certification was accepted and rejected by almost equal numbers. CONCLUSIONS: CME is being undertaken on the basis of personal choice. The focus is on subspecialty topics without considering needs. The guidance from the Colleges exerts little influence as a prompt. The methods chosen are personal choices and ignore what the Colleges recognize as valid CME.
BACKGROUND: "Consultants' continuing medical education (CME) activity is variable." Is this true? What part do prompts and constraints play? OBJECTIVE: To identify the CME activity of 80 district general hospital consultants from 27 specialties and all nine Royal Colleges. What do they do and why? What constrains them? What are their views on CME as a basis for revalidation? METHOD: A cross-sectional survey using a structured questionnaire derived from a content validity exercise, a pilot study and structured interviews. RESULTS: Of the 74 consultants who replied (92.5%) most claim to be spending sufficient time (defined by their College) undertaking a variety of internal and external CME. They do so through methods such as reading, discussion with colleagues, and teaching, which are not universally recognized by their Colleges. The majority declared most CME activity to be in their subspecialty rather than in their wider clinical or non-clinical roles. Least popular was non-clinical professional development. The majority knew how much CME they should be undertaking and all but one claimed to be doing so. Prompts were personal rather than organizational or external, while constraints centred on finding time. CME activity as a basis for re-certification was accepted and rejected by almost equal numbers. CONCLUSIONS: CME is being undertaken on the basis of personal choice. The focus is on subspecialty topics without considering needs. The guidance from the Colleges exerts little influence as a prompt. The methods chosen are personal choices and ignore what the Colleges recognize as valid CME.