Wallace S, May S A
Department of Biology, University of Iowa, 143 Biology Building, 129 E. Jefferson Street, Iowa City, IA 52242-1324, USA.
Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, UK.
Vet Rec. 2016 Nov 19;179(20):515-520. doi: 10.1136/vr.103862.
Numerous professional bodies have questioned whether traditional input-based continuing professional development (CPD) schemes are effective at measuring genuine learning and improving practice performance and patient health. The most commonly used type of long-established CPD activities, such as conferences, lectures and symposia, have been found to have a limited effect on improving practitioner competence and performance, and no significant effect on patient health outcomes. Additionally, it is thought that the impact of many CPD activities is reduced when they are undertaken in isolation outside of a defined structure of directed learning. In contrast, CPD activities which are interactive, encourage reflection on practice, provide opportunities to practice skills, involve multiple exposures, help practitioners to identify between current performance and a standard to be achieved, and are focused on outcomes, are the most effective at improving practice and patient health outcomes.
众多专业机构质疑传统的基于投入的持续专业发展（CPD）计划在衡量真正的学习、改善实践表现和患者健康方面是否有效。长期以来最常用的CPD活动类型，如会议、讲座和研讨会，已被发现对提高从业者的能力和表现效果有限，对患者健康结果没有显著影响。此外，人们认为，许多CPD活动如果在既定的定向学习结构之外单独进行，其影响会降低。相比之下，具有互动性、鼓励对实践进行反思、提供技能练习机会、涉及多次接触、帮助从业者识别当前表现与要达到的标准之间的差距且以结果为导向的CPD活动，在改善实践和患者健康结果方面最为有效。
