The UEMS experience in continuous medical education accreditation process: a ‘quo vadis’ analysis of our global database

Author:

Sideris Michail1,Rallis Kathrine S.2,Nicolaides Marios3,Kuri Ashvin1,Schottler Nadine4, ,Paulus Nathalie5,Haas Orthmar6,Krajewski Romuald7,Grenho Joao8,Papalois Vassilios9

Affiliation:

1. Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London

2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

3. Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust, London

4. Southampton General Hospital, Hampshire, England, UK

5. European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), Brussels, Belgium

6. Group Practice Dr. Haas/Dr. Engler, Klagenfurt, Germany

7. Head & Neck Cancer Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland

8. General Surgery Department, Hospital da Luz Oeiras, Oeiras, Portugal

9. Imperial College London

Abstract

Background: The authors systematically appraise a large database of continuous professional development (CPD) and continuous medical education (CME) events against the European Accreditation Council for Continuous Medical Education (EACCME) framework. Methods: The authors performed a retrospective observational study of all CPD or CME events within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) database between 2017 and 2019, including 91 countries and 6034 events. Assessment of event design, quality and outcomes was evaluated against a validated, expert-derived accreditation framework, using thematic analysis to extract distinct themes, and subsequent quantitative analysis. Results: The authors included 5649 live educational events (LEEs) and 385 e-learning materials (ELMs). Three thousand seven hundred sixty-two [3762 (62.3%)] of the events did not report clear justification in their needs assessment process. Most accreditation applications claimed covering a single educational need [1603/2277 (70.3%)]. Needs assessments were reported to be similar across conferences, courses and other types of events (P<0.01); 5642/6034 events (93.5%) had clearly documented expected learning outcomes; only 978/6034 (16.2%) reported a single expected learning outcome while the rest report 2–10 outcomes. Providers who declared more than one educational need also declared multiple learning outcomes (ρ=0.051, P<0.01). Conclusions: Despite EACCME providing a robust framework for the CPD/CME accreditation process, reporting quality can still be improved, as more than 1 in 2 events fail to provide a clear description of their needs assessment. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the largest educational LEE/ELM database, which can be a starting to revisit the CME/CPD accreditation process.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3