Depaigne-Loth Anne, Poirat Laure, Natali Jean-Philippe, Lenoir-Salfati Michèle, Regnier Kate, McMahon Graham, Hosansky Tamar
Agence nationale du Développement Professionnel Continu, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), Chicago, Illinois, USA.
J Eur CME. 2022 Apr 24;11(1):2068215. doi: 10.1080/21614083.2022.2068215. eCollection 2022.
Offering relevant, evidence based continuing professional development (CPD) to ensure the continued competence of health professionals is a universal concern. This concern will become even more crucial in a world facing global health threats and in a context of internationalisation of learning environments. While accrediting systems (i.e. external quality assurance systems for CPD) share a common goal to promote high quality CPD, each system is shaped by national history and contexts. An international movement is working to enhance the convergence of accrediting principles and processes. One of the first steps is to know and understand each other. This article serves this goal by offering a descriptive comparison of two seemingly different CPD quality assurance systems - in France and in the USA of America. The descriptions were developed by members of the accrediting bodies in both countries. The main finding of this descriptive study is that, despite stark differences in historical contexts and governance schemes, both regulators share principles of quality and independence of CPD and have endorsed a leadership role in promoting effective strategies, including interprofessional continuing education and practices. The commonalities of goals and values revealed in the study support the efforts of the International Academy for CPD Accreditation related to the globalisation of both health issues and learning environments.
提供相关的、基于证据的持续专业发展(CPD)以确保卫生专业人员的持续能力是一个全球性的关注点。在一个面临全球健康威胁的世界以及学习环境国际化的背景下,这种关注将变得更加关键。虽然认证系统(即CPD的外部质量保证系统)有着促进高质量CPD的共同目标,但每个系统都受到国家历史和背景的影响。一场国际运动正在努力加强认证原则和流程的趋同。第一步之一就是相互了解。本文通过对法国和美国两个看似不同的CPD质量保证系统进行描述性比较来实现这一目标。这些描述由两国认证机构的成员编写。这项描述性研究的主要发现是,尽管在历史背景和治理方案上存在显著差异,但两个监管机构都秉持CPD的质量和独立性原则,并在促进有效策略(包括跨专业继续教育和实践)方面发挥了领导作用。该研究中揭示的目标和价值观的共性支持了CPD认证国际学院在健康问题和学习环境全球化方面所做的努力。