ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine Australian psychiatrists’ experience of participation in a small group learning format of continuing professional development, known as peer review groups (PRGs), with a particular emphasis on group structure and functions.MethodAn exploratory mixed-methods study comprising a survey (n=77) and semistructured interviews (n=6) with Australian psychiatrists participating in a PRG in the previous 12 months.ResultsQualitative findings indicate that PRGs address experiential learning through a focus on both breadth and specificity of work, as well as participants’ experiences. Participants described using PRGs as a forum to manage difficult and complex work (through critiquing work, learning from one another, considering theory and guidelines, benchmarking, validating, reflecting and generalising learning) and to manage stress and well-being associated with crises, everyday stress and professional isolation. Particular structural aspects of PRGs considered essential to achieve these functions were self-selection of members, self-direction of meeting content and provision of a safe environment. These findings were convergent with the quantitative findings from scale survey data. Difficulties experienced during PRG participation are also described.ConclusionQualitative and quantitative findings from psychiatry PRGs demonstrate how practice-based professional experience functions as both a source of learning and of collegial connection that contributes to well-being and reduction in professional stress. Study limitations and future research directions are discussed.
Participants in the groups studied perceived peer review as a professional growth forum within a quality improvement framework providing critical review of treatment, continuing education, and a sense of collegiality. Boundaries of acceptable practice were tested and defined. At its best, participation in peer review groups enhanced reflective practice which achieved new understandings of clinical work. In this regard, peer review is seen as a highly desirable method for the maintenance of professional standards.
Objective: The 2020 RANZCP clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for mood disorders, published in January 2021, raise important questions for practice and teaching. The objective of this review is to critically appraise the content of the CPG to examine if it reflects contemporary practice-based evidence. Conclusion: Our review identifies factual error and notes international criticism. Retraction and amendment of the CPG is needed, particularly in the current political climate.
Objectives: To describe what is reported in the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) literature on small group learning formats in medicine, including the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) CPD Peer Review Groups (PRGs). Method: A literature review of international peer-reviewed publications in relation to the use of small group learning formats for CPD in medicine. Results: Small groups are commonly used as a learning format in medical CPD, primarily in general practice, but are little researched. Such groups take differing forms and they are valued by participants for a range of purposes, having effects on professionalism, clinical performance and doctors’ wellbeing. Conclusion: We believe that the contribution of these groups to medical CPD should be further explored. To this end, this review forms the first part of a research project focussing on the RANZCP PRG model used by Australian and New Zealand psychiatrists.
Objective: To explore some of the emerging complexities in the management of childhood gender dysphoria. Conclusion: The authors raise questions about the gender-affirmation approach and highlight concerns about informed consent and research ethics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.