Suppr超能文献

欧洲医学专家联盟在继续医学教育认证过程中的经验:对我们全球数据库的“何去何从”分析

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

作者信息

Sideris Michail, Rallis Kathrine S, Nicolaides Marios, Kuri Ashvin, Schottler Nadine, Paulus Nathalie, Haas Orthmar, Krajewski Romuald, Grenho Joao, Papalois Vassilios

机构信息

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

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

出版信息

Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2024 Jan 3;86(2):689-696. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001583. eCollection 2024 Feb.

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 (<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 (=0.051, <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.

摘要

背景

作者依据欧洲继续医学教育认证委员会(EACCME)框架,对大量继续职业发展(CPD)和继续医学教育(CME)活动数据库进行系统评估。

方法

作者对2017年至2019年欧洲医学专家联盟(UEMS)数据库中的所有CPD或CME活动开展回顾性观察研究,涵盖91个国家的6034项活动。依据经过验证的、由专家制定的认证框架,对活动设计、质量和结果进行评估,采用主题分析提取不同主题,随后进行定量分析。

结果

作者纳入了5649项现场教育活动(LEE)和385份电子学习材料(ELM)。其中3762项[3762(62.3%)]活动在需求评估过程中未报告明确的理由。大多数认证申请声称满足单一教育需求[1603/2277(70.3%)]。据报告,不同会议、课程和其他类型活动的需求评估相似(<0.01);6034项活动中有5642项(93.5%)有明确记录的预期学习成果;只有978/6034(16.2%)报告了单一预期学习成果,其余报告了2至10项成果。声明有多项教育需求的提供者也声明了多项学习成果(=0.051,<0.01)。

结论

尽管EACCME为CPD/CME认证过程提供了一个强大的框架,但报告质量仍可提高,因为超过二分之一的活动未能清晰描述其需求评估。据作者所知,这是最大的教育LEE/ELM数据库,可作为重新审视CME/CPD认证过程的开端。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f066/10849379/e73863f509f7/ms9-86-0689-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验