Search

Skepticism exists regarding the role of continuing medical education (CME) in improving physician performance. The harshest criticism has been reserved for didactic CME. Reviews of the scientific literature on the effectiveness of CME conclude that formal or didactic modes of education have little or no impact on clinical practice. This has led some to argue that didactic CME is a highly questionable use of organizational and financial resources, and a cause of lost opportunities for physicians to engage in meaningful learning. The authors' current program of research has forced them to reconsider the received wisdom regarding the relationship between didactic modes of education and learning, and the role frank dissemination can play in bringing about practice change. The authors argued that the practice of assessing and valuing educational methods based only on their capacity to directly influence practice reflects an impoverished understanding of how change in clinical practice actually occurs. Drawing on case studies research, examples were given of the functions didactic CME served in the interest of improved practice. Reasons were then explored as to why the contribution of didactic CME is often missed or dismissed. The goal was not to advocate for a return to the status quo ante where lecture-based education is the dominant modality, but rather to acknowledge both the limits and potential of this longstanding approach to delivering continuing education.

Clinical teams are of growing importance to healthcare delivery, but little is known about how teams learn and change their clinical practice. We examined how teams in three US hospitals succeeded in making significant practice improvements in the area of antimicrobial resistance. This was a qualitative cross-case study employing Soft Knowledge Systems as a conceptual framework. The purpose was to describe how teams produced, obtained, and used knowledge and information to bring about successful change. A purposeful sampling strategy was used to maximize variation between cases. Data were collected through interviews, archival document review, and direct observation. Individual case data were analyzed through a two-phase coding process followed by the cross-case analysis. Project teams varied in size and were multidisciplinary. Each project had more than one champion, only some of whom were physicians. Team members obtained relevant knowledge and information from multiple sources including the scientific literature, experts, external organizations, and their own experience. The success of these projects hinged on the teams' ability to blend scientific evidence, practical knowledge, and clinical data. Practice change was a longitudinal, iterative learning process during which teams continued to acquire, produce, and synthesize relevant knowledge and information and test different strategies until they found a workable solution to their problem. This study adds to our understanding of how teams learn and change, showing that innovation can take the form of an iterative, ongoing process in which bits of K&I are assembled from multiple sources into potential solutions that are then tested. It suggests that existing approaches to assessing the impact of continuing education activities may overlook significant contributions and more attention should be given to the role that practical knowledge plays in the change process in addition to scientific knowledge. (Contains 4 tables, 3 figures and 4 footnotes.)

Introduction: In developing their professional competence, those who are interested in the practice of continuing medical education (CME) should recognize the knowledge base that defines their field. This study systematically identifies and organizes a list of books and journals comprising a core library (100 books/15 journals) for CME professionals. Methods: The Delphi method was applied to elicit and combine the judgments of a fifty member panel considered knowledgeable about the CME field. The panelists participated in three iterations of the survey to first identify and then rank order nominated works. Separate ranked lists were created for books and journals. Results: Forty-four participants completed the study (88% response rate). 268 books and 34 journals were identified. Mean ratings ranged from 4.78 (high) to 1.50 (low). Discussion: The results of the study reflect the panel's judgment. The list is not definitive; instead, it describes what a select group of individuals knowledgeable about the CME field considered important. The list should therefore be seen as a general guide and a resource to facilitate decision-making, not as a prescription for creating a library.

Introduction: Supporting doctors' wellbeing is crucial for medical education to help minimise negative long‐term impacts on medical workforce retention and ultimately patient care. There is limited study of how doctors' transitions experiences impact wellbeing, particularly socially and culturally. Multiple Multidimensional Transitions (MMT) theory views transitions as dynamic, incorporating multiple contexts and multiple domains. Using MMT as our lens, we report a qualitative analysis of how transitions experienced by doctors during the pandemic impacted on social and cultural aspects of wellbeing. Methods: Longitudinal narrative inquiry was employed, using interviews and audio‐diaries. Data were collected over 6 months in three phases: (i) interviews with doctors from across the career spectrum (n = 98); (ii) longitudinal audio‐diaries for 2–4 months (n = 71); (iii) second interviews (n = 83). Data were analysed abductively, narrowing focus to factors important to social and cultural wellbeing. Results: Doctors described experiencing multiple interacting transitions triggered by the pandemic in multiple contexts (workplace, role, homelife and education). Patterns identifiable across the dataset allowed us to explore social and cultural wellbeing crosscutting beyond individual experience. Three critical factors contributed to social and cultural wellbeing both positively and negatively: being heard (e.g., by colleagues asking how they are); being valued (e.g., removal of rest spaces by organisations showing lack of value); and being supported (e.g., through regular briefing by education bodies). Conclusions: This study is the first to longitudinally explore the multiple‐multidimensional transitions experienced by doctors during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Our data analysis helped us move beyond existing perceptions around wellbeing and articulate multiple factors that contribute to social and cultural wellbeing. It is vital that medical educators consider the learning from these experiences to help pinpoint what aspects of support might be beneficial to trainee doctors and their trainers. This study forms the basis for developing evidenced‐based interventions that ensure doctors are heard, valued and supported. By analyzing the complexity of doctors' experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic, the authors identify three vital factors for well‐being: being heard, being valued and being supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to outline the development of a theoretically informed and evidence‐based intervention strategy to underpin interventions to support the well‐being of doctors during COVID‐19 and beyond; delineate new ways of working were employed to ensure a rapid and rigorous process of intervention development and present the resulting novel framework for intervention development. The research comprised four workstreams: literature review (WS1), qualitative study (WS2), intervention development and implementation (WS3) and evaluation (WS4). Due to time constraints, we employed a parallel design for WS1–3 with the findings of WS1–2 informing WS3 on a continual basis. WS3 was underpinned by the Behaviour Change Wheel. We recruited expert panels to assist with intervention development. We reflected on decisions taken to facilitate the rapid yet rigorous process of intervention development. The empirical output was a theoretically informed and evidence‐based intervention strategy to underpin interventions to support doctors' well‐being during COVID‐19 and beyond. The methodological output was a novel framework that facilitates rapid and rigorous development of interventions. The intervention strategy provides a foundation for development and evaluation of tailored interventions to support doctors' well‐being. The novel framework provides guidance for the development of interventions where the situation demands a rapid yet rigorous development process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]