| · CPD
· CPPE
· Reciprocity
· Prescribing
· The Society
· Technicians
Letters to the Editor
|
Continuing professional development (CPD)
Society should broaden its concept of CPD
From Mr P. Melnick, MRPharmS
That so many of a highly educated membership are prepared to be cowed
and brow-beaten into following a process they instinctively do not like
or feel comfortable with somehow reminds me of Alan Coren’s “Letters
from Kampala” from half a lifetime ago. When asked why he had murdered
the intelligentsia, Coren’s Idi Amin replied that if they were
so intelligent what were they doing dead?
The thorny issue of continuing professional development continues to
cause considerable angst for some, as indicated both by the letters pages
and private conversations. Perhaps I might be permitted to contribute
another tuppenceworth to the debate?
In my less than humble opinion, all learning is continuing education
and putting that learning into practice constitutes CPD. By using those
simple definitions, which I trust are readily understandable and acceptable
by all, CPD loses its mystique. Indeed, I have written up over 30 items
of CPD in the first quarter of this year alone, whereas had I followed
the Society’s model, I would still be struggling with my first
one, worrying over which box to tick, here, and agonising over which
one, there.
Moreover, on the not unreasonable assumption that any new learning put
into practice is likely to benefit a patient, it is compatible with the
NHS definition of CPD as given by Attewell, Blenkinsopp and Black (PJ,
30 April, p519, PDF (100K)): “A process of lifelong learning for
all individuals and teams which meets the needs of patients and delivers
the health outcomes
and healthcare priorities of the NHS and which enables professionals
to expand and fulfil their potential.”
A little later in their article, they state that “CPD is a proactive
process and, in the Society model, consists of four stages”. Leaving
aside the fact that CPD can also be reactive, the implication is that
the Society’s model is not the only one. So one can still do CPD
in a way which differs from Lambeth’s favoured approach.
Now test the Society’s cycle against the NHS definition and it
becomes pretty obvious that the process is not a requirement as far as
the NHS is concerned. It might well add to the flavour, but you do not
check the meat by tasting the gravy.
That Philip Green and his colleagues adopted their stance because it
is easier to monitor the process than the substance, is, from their box
tickers’ viewpoint, readily understandable. After all, everyone
likes a quiet life. Heaven forbid that they should do what the rest of
us folks do every working day and adapt to changing circumstances and
challenging problems. That would never do.
In a comment on a previous letter of mine on this subject, the point
was made that the veracity of an individual’s CPD could not always
be verified because some pharmacists practised in areas far removed from
the humdrum of community and hospital, hence validating the process was
considered more readily reliable than checking the contents.
The incongruity of their argument stands out like a sore thumb. On that
basis, one could write a convincing piece of gobbledegook which would
be quite acceptable because it conformed to the cycle, while an otherwise
good piece of CPD would be rejected because it did not. Worse, at a branch
meeting a couple of months ago, the Society’s CPD representative
suggested with a resigned shrug of her shoulders that ultimately we could
be removed from the Register for failing to comply with their process
model. We would not be struck off for failing to do CPD. Oh no! We would
be struck off for failing to use their process. How arrogant is that?
How does that square with a Society, which exists in part, to protect
and promote the interests and welfare of its members?
That a supposedly scientific Society can adapt such an illogical and
flawed approach simply beggars belief.
Surely the time has come for the Society to concede that other methods
would be equally valid and acceptable.
Perry Melnick
Ilford,
Essex
| |
PHILIP GREEN, director of education and registration, Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, replies:
Members may find the following points informative.
The view on how much CPD to record was established through the Society’s
CPD pilots. Participants in the pilots were not provided with guidance on how
much CPD to record or how long to spend on it. Left to their own devices they
made about one CPD entry a month in their CPD record and once they were familiar
with the system this took about 30 minutes. They reported undertaking more CPD
than this but they were selective about what they recorded. They also reported
that they were already doing CPD but participation in the Society’s model
had made their CPD more focused.
The pilot also demonstrated that recording a selection of CPD in more detail,
instead of everything in little detail, conveyed engagement in the Society’s
CPD model more effectively and allowed for richer feedback to the pharmacist.
It is a matter of quality over quantity.
Such findings have informed the model that has been rolled out to the profession.
We advise that on average about one CPD entry should be recorded each month,
although everyone will find their own pattern, perhaps two every other month.
Members may record what has in their view been their most meaningful development
and what they think is the most useful to record.
One sure way of making CPD recording pointless and time consuming is to record
gobbledegook. It is not about ticking boxes. Why not do it for real? It is
quicker, easier and of more value when there is genuine engagement in the
process. This
was the experience of pharmacists who took part in the pilots.
Mr Melnick is correct to say that the Society’s CPD model is one model
of many. It is consistent and compatible with the NHS model, as described in “A
first class service”, where “a model of a CPD cycle” is described
in fours stages: assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation. Indeed,
It is uncannily similar to our own but we were the first to apply it.
The Society’s model has, however, been extensively piloted and has undergone
two independent reviews by Janet Grant, Open University professor of education
in medicine, and Ron Barnett, dean, professional development programme, Institute
of Education. Both found that the system draws on conventional thinking in
the area of CPD.
CPD should be recorded using the Society’s format, or formats approved
by us, for two reasons. First, effectiveness: the pilots indicated that alternative
formats do not usually provide all the information we review, thus disadvantaging
the pharmacist. Second: standard forms enable the efficient review of records,
so keep down the costs. Most organisations request that information necessary
for transactions between them and users is provided in a standardised format.
Tax returns, mortgage applications, insurance claims and mail order purchases
all require completion of standard forms.
The Society is providing support to members with CPD records and values and
uses constructive feedback. There is always scope for improvement Anyone
struggling with the CPD forms may find it helpful to read the CPD case studies
now available
for download from www.uptodate.org.uk,
by e-mailing cpd@rpsgb.org or telephoning
020 7572 2540. The case studies have been
derived from real records submitted to the Society, some background information
and a helpful commentary by a CPD reviewer. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal