CPD records for revalidation: assessing fitness-to-practise using ‘revalidation standards’ and an Outcomes Framework

Background: Currently, all pharmacists and technicians registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain must complete a minimum of nine Continuing Professional Development (CPD) record (entries) each year. From September 2010 a new regulatory body, the General Pharmaceutical Council, will oversee the regulation (including revalidation) of all pharmacy registrants in Great Britain. CPD may provide part of the supporting evidence that a practitioner submits to the regulator as part of the revalidation process. Gaps in knowledge necessitated further research to examine the usefulness of CPD in a pharmacy revalidation Project aims: The overall aims of this project were to summarise pharmacy professionals’ past involvement in CPD, examine the usability of current CPD entries for the purpose of revalidation, and to examine the impact of ‘revalidation standards’ and a bespoke Outcomes Framework on the conduct and construction of CPD entries for future revalidation of pharmacy professionals. We completed a comprehensive review of the literature, devised, validated and tested the impact of a new CPD Outcomes Framework and related training material in an empirical investigation involving volunteer pharmacy professionals and also spoke with our participants to bring meaning and understanding to the process of CPD conduct and recording and to gain feedback on the study itself. Key findings: The comprehensive literature review identified perceived barriers to CPD and resulted in recommendations that could potentially rectify pharmacy professionals’ perceptions and facilitate participation in CPD. The CPD Outcomes Framework can be used to score CPD entries Compared to a control (CPD and ‘revalidation standards’ only), we found that training participants to apply the CPD Outcomes Framework resulted in entries that scored significantly higher in the context of a quantitative method of CPD assessment. Feedback from participants who had received the CPD Outcomes Framework was positive and a number of useful suggestions were made about improvements to the Framework and related training. Entries scored higher because participants had consciously applied concepts linked to the CPD Outcomes Framework whereas entries scored low where participants had been unable to apply the concepts of the Framework for a variety of reasons including limitations posed by the ‘Plan & Record’ template. Feedback about the nature of the ‘revalidation standards’ and their application to CPD was not positive and participants had not in the main sought to apply the standards to their CPD entries – but those in the intervention group were more likely to have referred to the revalidation standards for their CPD. As assessors, we too found the process of selecting and assigning ‘revalidation standards’ to individual CPD entries burdensome and somewhat unspecific. We believe that addressing the perceived barriers and drawing on the facilitators will help deal with the apparent lack of engagement with the revalidation standards and have been able to make a set of relevant recommendations. We devised a model to explain and tell the story of CPD behaviour. Based on the concepts of purpose, action and results, the model centres on explaining two types of CPD behaviour, one following the traditional CE pathway and the other a more genuine CPD pathway. Entries which scored higher when we applied the CPD Outcomes Framework were more likely to follow the CPD pathway in the model above. Significant to our finding is that while participants following both models of practice took part in this study, the CPD Outcomes Framework was able to change people’s CPD behaviour to make it more inline with the CPD pathway. The CPD Outcomes Framework in defining the CPD criteria, the training pack in teaching the basis and use of the Framework and the process of assessment in using the CPD Outcomes Framework, would have interacted to improve participants’ CPD through a collective process. Participants were keen to receive a curriculum against which certainly CE-type activities could be conducted and another important observation relates to whether CE has any role to play in pharmacy professionals’ revalidation. We would recommend that the CPD Outcomes Framework is used in the revalidation of pharmacy professionals in the future provided the requirement to submit 9 CPD entries per annum is re-examined and expressed more clearly in relation to what specifically participants are being asked to submit – i.e. the ratio of CE to CPD entries. We can foresee a benefit in setting more regular intervals which would act as deadlines for CPD submission in the future. On the whole, there is value in using CPD for the purpose of pharmacy professionals’ revalidation in the future.

Climatic control of the biomass-burning decline in the Americas after AD 1500

The significance and cause of the decline in biomass burning across the Americas after AD 1500 is a topic of considerable debate. We synthesized charcoal records (a proxy for biomass burning) from the Americas and from the remainder of the globe over the past 2000 years, and compared these with paleoclimatic records and population reconstructions. A distinct post-AD 1500 decrease in biomass burning is evident, not only in the Americas, but also globally, and both are similar in duration and timing to ‘Little Ice Age’ climate change. There is temporal and spatial variability in the expression of the biomass-burning decline across the Americas but, at a regional–continental scale, ‘Little Ice Age’ climate change was likely more important than indigenous population collapse in driving this decline.

Metacognitive control over memory processes under auditory distraction

Decades of research attest that memory processes suffer under conditions of auditory distraction. What is however less well understood is whether people are able to modify how their memory processes are deployed in order to compensate for disruptive effects of distraction. The metacognitive approach to memory describes a variety of ways people can exert control over their cognitive processes to optimize performance. Here we describe our recent investigations into how these control processes change under conditions of auditory distraction. We specifically looked at control of encoding in the form of decisions about how long to study a word when it is presented and control of memory reporting in the form of decisions whether to volunteer or withhold retrieved details. Regarding control of encoding, we expected that people would compensate for disruptive effects of distraction by extending study time under noise. Our results revealed, however, that when exposed to irrelevant speech, people curtail rather than extend study. Regarding control of memory reporting, we expected that people would compensate for the loss of access to memory records by volunteering responses held with lower confidence. Our results revealed, however, that people’s reporting strategies do not differ when memory task is performed in silence or under auditory distraction, although distraction seriously undermines people’s confidence in their own responses. Together, our studies reveal novel avenues for investigating the psychological effects of auditory distraction within a metacognitive framework.

Training on the use of a bespoke continuing professional development framework improves the quality of CPD records

BACKGROUND: Using continuing professional development (CPD) as part of the revalidation of pharmacy professionals has been proposed in the UK but not implemented. We developed a CPD Outcomes Framework (‘the framework’) for scoring CPD records, where the score range was -100 to +150 based on demonstrable relevance and impact of the CPD on practice. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study aimed to test the outcome of training people to use the framework, through distance-learning material (active intervention), by comparing CPD scores before and after training. SETTING: Pharmacy professionals were recruited in the UK in Reading, Banbury, Southampton, Kingston-upon-Thames and Guildford in 2009. METHOD: We conducted a randomised, double-blinded, parallel-group, before and after study. The control group simply received information on new CPD requirements through the post; the active intervention group also received the framework and associated training. Altogether 48 participants (25 control, 23 active) completed the study. All participants submitted CPD records to the research team before and after receiving the posted resources. The records (n=226) were scored blindly by the researchers using the framework. A subgroup of CPD records (n=96) submitted first (before-stage) and rewritten (after-stage) were analysed separately. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Scores for CPD records received before and after distributing group-dependent material through the post. RESULTS: Using a linear-regression model both analyses found an increase in CPD scores in favour of the active intervention group. For the complete set of records, the effect was a mean difference of 9.9 (95% CI = 0.4 to 19.3), p-value = 0.04. For the subgroup of rewritten records, the effect was a mean difference of 17.3 (95% CI = 5.6 to 28.9), p-value = 0.0048. CONCLUSION: The intervention improved participants’ CPD behaviour. Training pharmacy professionals to use the framework resulted in better CPD activities and CPD records, potentially helpful for revalidation of pharmacy professionals. IMPACT: • Using a bespoke Continuing Professional Development outcomes framework improves the value of pharmacy professionals’ CPD activities and CPD records, with the potential to improve patient care. • The CPD outcomes framework could be helpful to pharmacy professionals internationally who want to improve the quality of their CPD activities and CPD records. • Regulators and officials across Europe and beyond can assess the suitability of the CPD outcomes framework for use in pharmacy CPD and revalidation in their own setting.