Continuing Medical Education in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics: report of a questionnaire survey

Abstract

Aims: To seek the views of medically qualified members of the Clinical Section of the British Pharmacological Society (BPS) on their perceived needs for Continuing Medical Education (CME); on how and by whom these needs should be addressed; and on how the outcome of any educational intervention might best be assessed.

Methods: A structured questionnaire.

Results: Of 233 recipients, 140 (60%) responded, but only 123 of these fulfilled the criteria for analysis. A large majority of respondents were clinicians, most of whom devoted at least 25% of their working week to their NHS commitment. There was widespread reliance on textbooks and journals as sources of CME, supplemented by discussions with specialist peers at national and international meetings. Many felt that fulfilling even this agenda was stretching their commitment to the limit, and their greatest need was for protected time in which to learn. There was a desire among 49% of all respondents for the BPS Clinical Section to take some responsibilty for addressing the future needs of its members, and 75% took the view that academic departments should contribute to the development and updating of materials. There was no clear agreement about what these should comprise, but around half of all respondents favoured web-based, journal-based or computer-assisted educational material offering self-assessment opportunities; and CME symposia or workshops at BPS meetings. Almost half (46%) felt that assessment of CME should be integrated with a well-organized appraisal system and the use of portfolios. Six out of 10 respondents were already, or were about to be, regularly appraised at their place of work.

Conclusions: The questionnaire survey revealed a broad canvas of views and little evidence of consensus except for a general plea for more time in which to learn. The aim of the Clinical Section should be to facilitate and help its members to organize their learning, in a way that is consistent with national trends in Continuing Professional Development. The Clinical Section should co-ordinate the setting up of an electronic library of appropriate published material, compiled by academic and industrial sources, that would guide members seeking up-to-date knowledge of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP) should commission review articles on recent developments where no suitable published material exists. Academic departments should also be invited to identify or develop self-assessment material that members could use to reinforce their learning, and demonstrate their knowledge to relevant professional bodies. The Clinical Section should organize Symposia and Workshops at which contentious issues in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics can be discussed and resolved.

Figure 1

Continuing Professional Development in CPT. Starting at the Doctor-patient encounter, the first loop describes the elements of on-the-job learning. This generates learning needs which, once addressed and reflected on, can be entered into a learning portfolio. Compiling the latter reveals learning objectives that may require a wider search for knowledge, or even further training. These are fed into the appraisal system to derive a personal development plan, so that time can be ring-fenced for their fulfilment (off-the-job learning). Both on-and off-the-job learning can contribute to shared learning with one's colleagues that results, ultimately, in increased team competence. FAQ=Frequently asked questions; DTC=Drug & Therapeutics Committee; CSM=Committee on Safety of Medicines.