Challenges and opportunities for general practice specific CME in Europe - a narrative review of seven countries.
Continuing medical education
Curriculum
General practice
Narrative review
Program evaluation
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Nov 2022
07 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
23
06
2022
accepted:
24
10
2022
entrez:
7
11
2022
pubmed:
8
11
2022
medline:
10
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several changes have led to general practitioners (GPs) working in a more differentiated setting today and being supported by other health professions. As practice changes, primary care specific continuing medical education (CME) may also need to adapt. By comparing different primary care specific CME approaches for GPs across Europe, we aim at identifying challenges and opportunities for future development. Narrative review assessing, analysing and comparing CME programs for general practitioners across different north-western European countries (UK, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium (Flanders), Germany, Switzerland, and France). Templates containing detailed items across seven dimensions of country-specific CME were developed and used. These dimensions are role of primary care within the health system, legal regulations regarding CME, published aims of CME, actual content of CME, operationalisation, funding and sponsorship, and evaluation. General practice specific CME in the countries under consideration are presented and comparatively analysed based on the dimensions defined in advance. This shows that each of the countries examined has different strengths and weaknesses. A clear pioneer cannot be identified. Nevertheless, numerous impulses for optimising future GP training systems can be derived from the examples presented. Independent of country specific CME programs several fields of potential action were identified: the development of curriculum objectives for GPs, the promotion of innovative teaching and learning formats, the use of synergies in specialist GP training and CME, the creation of accessible yet comprehensive learning platforms, the establishment of clear rules for sponsorship, the development of new financing models, the promotion of fair competition between CME providers, and scientifically based evaluation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several changes have led to general practitioners (GPs) working in a more differentiated setting today and being supported by other health professions. As practice changes, primary care specific continuing medical education (CME) may also need to adapt. By comparing different primary care specific CME approaches for GPs across Europe, we aim at identifying challenges and opportunities for future development.
METHODS
METHODS
Narrative review assessing, analysing and comparing CME programs for general practitioners across different north-western European countries (UK, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium (Flanders), Germany, Switzerland, and France). Templates containing detailed items across seven dimensions of country-specific CME were developed and used. These dimensions are role of primary care within the health system, legal regulations regarding CME, published aims of CME, actual content of CME, operationalisation, funding and sponsorship, and evaluation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
General practice specific CME in the countries under consideration are presented and comparatively analysed based on the dimensions defined in advance. This shows that each of the countries examined has different strengths and weaknesses. A clear pioneer cannot be identified. Nevertheless, numerous impulses for optimising future GP training systems can be derived from the examples presented.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Independent of country specific CME programs several fields of potential action were identified: the development of curriculum objectives for GPs, the promotion of innovative teaching and learning formats, the use of synergies in specialist GP training and CME, the creation of accessible yet comprehensive learning platforms, the establishment of clear rules for sponsorship, the development of new financing models, the promotion of fair competition between CME providers, and scientifically based evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36344994
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03832-7
pii: 10.1186/s12909-022-03832-7
pmc: PMC9641932
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
761Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Bull Acad Natl Med. 2020 Jun;204(6):589-597
pubmed: 32296240
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2008;102(5):291-7
pubmed: 19006916
Health Policy. 2010 Mar;94(3):246-54
pubmed: 19913324
BMJ. 2014 Oct 17;349:g6171
pubmed: 25353963
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015 Spring;35(2):131-8
pubmed: 26115113
Med Teach. 2007 Oct;29(8):752-7
pubmed: 18236272
BMJ. 1999 May 8;318(7193):1276-9
pubmed: 10231265
Acad Med. 2018 Mar;93(3S Competency-Based, Time-Variable Education in the Health Profe):S32-S36
pubmed: 29485485
Postgrad Med J. 2016 Apr;92(1086):217-22
pubmed: 26850504
Lancet. 2012 Jul 7;380(9836):37-43
pubmed: 22579043
Semergen. 2017 Sep;43(6):445-449
pubmed: 27102951
GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2010;27(2):Doc23
pubmed: 21818192
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Sep 26;69(687):517-518
pubmed: 31558540
Postgrad Med J. 2003 Apr;79(930):187-8
pubmed: 12743332
BMJ. 2001 Oct 6;323(7316):799-803
pubmed: 11588088
Acad Med. 2019 Sep;94(9):1283-1288
pubmed: 31460916
Eval Program Plann. 2018 Jun;68:19-33
pubmed: 29459228
Qual Prim Care. 2011;19(3):175-81
pubmed: 21781433
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2020 Mar 19;163:
pubmed: 32191407
Med Teach. 2013 Apr;35(4):277-81
pubmed: 23281880
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010 Jun;107(22):392-8
pubmed: 20574555