Paul Little1, Stephen Hayes. 1. Community Clinical Sciences (Primary Medical Care Group), University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, UK. psl3@soton.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional post-graduate meetings-typically 'lunchtime' meetings outside practices-have been heavily criticized. Revalidation is also impending, and there has been associated pressure for the widespread introduction of personal development plans (PDPs). However, there is very little empirical evidence about the usefulness to GPs of different kinds of educational meeting or of PDPs. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess the utility to GPs of different types of post-graduate meeting and PDPs. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 921 GP principals in three health authorities, who were asked to recall their most recent post-graduate education-approved (PGEA) meetings (practice-based and 'outside') and the latest major learning 'undertaken' in their PDP. RESULTS: A total of 698 GPs (76%) returned questionnaires. A substantial minority (208; 30%) had a PDP. Most had undertaken education recently [median time elapsed (weeks): meeting 'outside' practice, 4; 'practice-based', 5; PDP, 3]. Education had not changed clinical practice for many GPs ('practice-based' 39% reported no change; 'outside' meetings 50% and PDPs 57%). A change in practice after a practice meeting was related to relevance to everyday practice [disagree/neutral, agree, strongly agree odds ratios: 1.00, 4.22 (95% CI 2.1-8.6) and 5.9 (2.6-13.3), respectively], to lecturer factors (enthusiasm, summarizing important points, handouts) and to social enjoyment. PDPs were less likely to be perceived relevant to practice (practice-based meeting, 'outside' meeting, PDPs: 89, 87 and 72%, respectively), as a break from practice (54,72 and 18%), good socially (63, 72 and 15%), good for professional networking (54, 70 and 19%) and glad to have done it (84, 86 and 44%). Being glad to use a PDP was more likely if the learning was clinically relevant, a break from practice, and incorporated professional networking. CONCLUSION: Changes in practice after post-graduate meetings are not only related to clinical relevance and lecturer factors, but also to professional and social factors. PDPs may not be providing better learning opportunities or enjoyment than traditional meetings, although GPs who are glad to use PDPs incorporate clinical relevance, a break from practice and networking. Post-graduate tutors should probably continue to support and monitor the lecturer quality and clinical relevance of a balanced portfolio of both practice-based and 'outside' meetings.
BACKGROUND: Conventional post-graduate meetings-typically 'lunchtime' meetings outside practices-have been heavily criticized. Revalidation is also impending, and there has been associated pressure for the widespread introduction of personal development plans (PDPs). However, there is very little empirical evidence about the usefulness to GPs of different kinds of educational meeting or of PDPs. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess the utility to GPs of different types of post-graduate meeting and PDPs. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 921 GP principals in three health authorities, who were asked to recall their most recent post-graduate education-approved (PGEA) meetings (practice-based and 'outside') and the latest major learning 'undertaken' in their PDP. RESULTS: A total of 698 GPs (76%) returned questionnaires. A substantial minority (208; 30%) had a PDP. Most had undertaken education recently [median time elapsed (weeks): meeting 'outside' practice, 4; 'practice-based', 5; PDP, 3]. Education had not changed clinical practice for many GPs ('practice-based' 39% reported no change; 'outside' meetings 50% and PDPs 57%). A change in practice after a practice meeting was related to relevance to everyday practice [disagree/neutral, agree, strongly agree odds ratios: 1.00, 4.22 (95% CI 2.1-8.6) and 5.9 (2.6-13.3), respectively], to lecturer factors (enthusiasm, summarizing important points, handouts) and to social enjoyment. PDPs were less likely to be perceived relevant to practice (practice-based meeting, 'outside' meeting, PDPs: 89, 87 and 72%, respectively), as a break from practice (54,72 and 18%), good socially (63, 72 and 15%), good for professional networking (54, 70 and 19%) and glad to have done it (84, 86 and 44%). Being glad to use a PDP was more likely if the learning was clinically relevant, a break from practice, and incorporated professional networking. CONCLUSION: Changes in practice after post-graduate meetings are not only related to clinical relevance and lecturer factors, but also to professional and social factors. PDPs may not be providing better learning opportunities or enjoyment than traditional meetings, although GPs who are glad to use PDPs incorporate clinical relevance, a break from practice and networking. Post-graduate tutors should probably continue to support and monitor the lecturer quality and clinical relevance of a balanced portfolio of both practice-based and 'outside' meetings.
Authors: Michael J Schoen; Edmond F Tipton; Thomas K Houston; Ellen Funkhouser; Deborah A Levine; Carlos A Estrada; Jeroan J Allison; O Dale Williams; Catarina I Kiefe Journal: J Contin Educ Health Prof Date: 2009 Impact factor: 1.355