Beyond accreditation systems – the identification of different implementation models for CME across Europe

Abstract

We have previously published the results of a comprehensive research project which was conducted in 11 European countries in 2010/2011 to establish a detailed database on the implementation of CME in these countries, including underlying structures, roles and responsibilities, and funding models. Special attention was given to the role of the various stakeholders such as Ministry of Health/government, physician associations/societies/chambers, and universities in addition to the positioning of CME within the medical education pathway from undergraduate through postgraduate to life-long learning. We showed that there were three models for the implementation and accreditation of CME: physiciancentric model, politician-centric model and university-centric model. In this paper we describe a more detailed analysis of these systems. The three diff erent types are characterised by diff erent leaderships (physician representations, Ministry of Health and universities), diff erent drivers and diff erent means of access to CME. There was no relationship between the accreditation system implemented in the respective country and the identifi ed CME implementation model. In addition, diff erent approaches to funding were identifi ed for the diff erent models, from purely governmental funding to predominantly third party sponsoring, revealing diff erent risks for bias in the diff erent models. We conclude that knowledge of the underlying model may be crucial for providers of medical education and medical societies when executing international educational programmes for their members or setting up international collaborations. It is hoped that these new fi ndings may also stimulate an interesting discussion amongst the leaders in CME on what may be the future model for CME in Europe: Is there one compelling model other countries may want to follow?

Continuing professional development (CPD) system development, implementation, evaluation and sustainability for healthcare professionals in low- and lower-middle-income countries: a rapid scoping review

“…As shown in the review, a number of challenges exist in LLMICs that render the CPD system development and implementation much more complex, namely limited financing, technological barriers, a lack of human resources and structures to maintain a CPD system, negative attitudes, and a dearth of CPD materials and activities that are relevant to the context and available in the local language. As highlighted by others, and also in this review, government level engagement can ensure resources, including financing, are mobilized, and can provide support for setting standards; they may also pay a role in enforcement [ 1 , 10 , 13 , 17 ]. Vakani et al (2022) observed, however, that government involvement and effectiveness are often related to political stability within a country, and thus the larger context must be considered as well [ 13 ].…”

Компьютерный Экзамен И Клиническое Мышление: Современный Подход К Оценке Знаний Врача

“…Насамперед слід зауважити, що прийняття рі-шень при обґрунтуванні стратегії контролю знань у системі післядипломної медичної освіти здійсню-ється в умовах як певної невизначеності щодо рівня знань слухачів, їх сприйняття навчального матері-алу, так й відсутності єдиних критеріїв успішнос-ті процесу [9]. Тому вважаємо, що контроль знань може бути валідним, якщо забезпечується режим постійного моніторингу.…”

The Status Quo of Continuing Medical Education in South-East Asia and Eastern Mediterranean Regions: A Scoping Review of 33 Countries

“…There are international reviews regarding CME practices and requirements in European countries. 12,18–20 However, there are no recent reviews on the CME status in the SEAR and Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) to monitor progress in implementing formal CME in these regions. This research investigates “What is the status of CME provision and its regulation for health care professionals in SEAR and EMR?” These are two of the six regions defined by the WHO: Africa, America, Europe, Western Pacific, EMR, and SEAR.…”