The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7486 p82
26 January 2008

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 60K, Acrobat Reader

• Statutory Committee
• EHC
• The profession
• WCPPE
• CPD
• Premises fee
• Retention fees (2)

Letters to the Editor

Continuing professional development (CPD)

Lack of realistic engagement

From Dr C. A. Duggan, MRPharmS, and others

We were interested in the recent article on continuing professional development and fitness to practise by Dyke and Gidman (PJ, 19 January 2008, p48). We agree that there remains a reality gap between rhetoric, the policies and the practice of CPD by individuals. This is exacerbated by the terminology often adopted by policy pronouncements (“doing” CPD, for example, or vague notions that practitioners should engage in “reflective practice” and “lifelong learning”).

Despite the plethora of publications, articles, theory and policy on the issue of CPD, there remains a lack of realistic engagement; the heart of the issue is that a significant proportion of practitioners cannot see the everyday usefulness of CPD. The reason is clear to practitioners, but sadly not to the theorists and zealots, who on the whole have little experience of busy and demanding healthcare work environments.

To be relevant and successful, CPD requires a pragmatic, in situ, realisation (or “operationalisation”). This can only be achieved, from a fitness-to-practise context, through properly constructed developmental (or competency) frameworks.

The Competency Development and Evaluation Group (CoDEG) has researched “bottom up” approaches towards developing practitioner-owned and workable professional development frameworks relevant to different levels of practice (the “General level framework”, the “Advanced to consultant level framework”, and now the “Pharmacy technicians’ framework”).

These are now in widespread use by practitioners and employers, nationally and internationally. Why have these frameworks worked? Because they are the only developmental frameworks to have been tested and shown to work in a way that allies CPD and practitioner development within measurable outcomes.^{1, 2}

Practitioners do not have to struggle with terminology such as “reflective practice” or have to take time out from the workplace to “do their CPD”. More recently, the Joint Programmes Board has applied this methodology to practitioner development pathways for several hundred junior pharmacists in the south east region, to marked effect. This has enabled both an NHS statement of completion and a postgraduate diploma award to be made on the combined basis of performance and academic attainment.

We have good evidence that these same developmental frameworks provide similar practitioner support for all practice settings, with the important issue being levels of practice, not sector-based work environments.

CPD, competency-based approaches and fitness to practise can be successfully married. The crucial step has been the collaborative realisation and application of a work-based model based on equity with the practitioners, the employers (so far, the NHS), the professional agencies (eg, the UK Clinical Pharmacy Association and Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists among others) and the higher education sector.

We have shown that a collaborative ownership of practitioner development can impact on the assured competence and performance of practitioners. There is a lesson here for the current professional debate we are having in the UK.

Catherine Duggan
Chairman
UK Clinical Pharmacy Association
Graham Davies
Head of Programmes
Joint Programmes Board
Sarah Carter
Research Lead
Competency Development and Evaluation Group
Ian Bates
Head of Education Development
School of Pharmacy, University of London
John Quinn
Chief Pharmacist
Buckinghamshire NHS Trust
Stuart Semple
Chief Pharmacist and Chairman
Joint Programmes Board
Laura Obiols
Research Officer
CoDEG

References
1. Antoniou S, Webb DG, McRobbie D, Davies JG, Wright J, Quinn J, et al. A controlled study of the general level framework: results of the South of England competency study. Pharmacy Education 2005;5:201–7.

2. Obiols Albinana L, Bates IP, Webb DG, Davies JG, McRobbie D. Validating advanced practice: towards a definition of Consultant Pharmacist. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2005;13(Suppl):R54.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (WCPPE)
Next Topic (Premises fee)