RESUMEN
Continuing medical education (CME) is a requirement for medical professionals to stay current in their ever-changing fields. The recent significant changes that have occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic have significantly impacted the process of providing and obtaining CME. In this paper, an updated approach to successfully creating and administering CME is offered. Recommendations regarding various aspects of CME development are covered, including competitive assessment, marketing, budgeting, property sourcing, program development, and speaker and topic selection. Strategies for traditional and hybrid CME formats are also explored. Readers and institutions interested in developing CME, especially in the setting of the ongoing pandemic, will be able to use these strategies as a solid framework for producing CME. The recommendations and strategies presented within this paper are based on the authors' opinions, expert opinions, and experiences over 13 years of creating CME events and challenges brought about due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: CPD educators and CME providers would benefit from further insight regarding barriers and supports in obtaining CME, including sources of information about CME. To address this gap, we sought to explore challenges that clinicians encounter as they seek CME, and time and monetary support allotted for CME. METHODS: In August 2018, we surveyed licensed US clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants), sampling 100 respondents each of family medicine physicians, internal medicine and hospitalist physicians, medicine specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (1895 invited, 500 [26.3%] responded). The Internet-based questionnaire addressed barriers to obtaining CME, sources of CME information, and time and monetary support for CME. RESULTS: The most often-selected barriers were expense (338/500 [68%]) and travel time (N = 286 [57%]). The source of information about CME activities most commonly selected was online search (N = 348 [70%]). Direct email, professional associations, direct mail, and journals were also each selected by > 50% of respondents. Most respondents reported receiving 1-6 days (N = 301 [60%]) and $1000-$5000 (n = 263 [53%]) per year to use in CME activities. Most (> 70%) also reported no change in time or monetary support over the past 24 months. We found few significant differences in responses across clinician type or age group. In open-ended responses, respondents suggested eight ways to enhance CME: optimize location, reduce cost, publicize effectively, offer more courses and content, allow flexibility, ensure accessibility, make content clinically relevant, and encourage application. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians report that expense and travel time are the biggest barriers to CME. Time and money support is limited, and not increasing. Online search and email are the most frequently-used sources of information about CME. Those who organize and market CME should explore options that reduce barriers of time and money, and creatively use online tools to publicize new offerings.
Asunto(s)
Enfermeras Practicantes , Asistentes Médicos , Médicos , Educación Médica Continua , Humanos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To explore what influences clinicians in selecting continuing medical education (CME) activities in the United States. METHOD: In August 2018, the authors conducted an Internet-based national survey, sampling 100 respondents from each of 5 groups: family medicine physicians, internal medicine and hospitalist physicians, medicine specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. In total, 1,895 clinicians were invited and 500 (26%) responded. Questions addressed the selection and anticipated use of CME delivery modalities and perceived characteristics of specific CME providers. Response formats used best-worst scaling or 5-point ordinal response options. RESULTS: The factors identified as most important in selecting CME activities were topic (best-worst scaling net positivity 0.54), quality of content (0.51), availability of CME credit (0.43), and clinical practice focus (0.41), while referral frequency (-0.57) ranked lowest. The activities that the respondents anticipated using most in the future were live (mean 3.8 [1 = not likely, 5 = very likely]), online (mean 3.5), point-of-care (mean 3.5), and print-based (mean 3.5) activities. For online CME, the features of greatest appeal were that learning could be done when clinicians had time (mean 4.4), at their own pace (mean 4.2), and at lower cost (mean 4.2). For live CME, the features of greatest appeal were that the subject was best taught using this modality (mean 4.0), or the activity was located in a destination spot (mean 4.0) or a regional location (mean 3.9). When rating specific CME providers, most academic institutions received relatively high ratings for research focus and clinical practice focus, whereas commercial providers had slightly higher ratings for ease of access. Responses were generally similar across clinician types and age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants are interested in using a variety of CME delivery modalities. Appealing features of online and live CME were different.