Methodology for assessing the appropriateness of Continuing Professional Development for pharmacy professionals’ revalidation

From April 2010, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) will be responsible for the statutory regulation of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in Great Britain (GB).[1] All statutorily regulated health professionals will need to periodically demonstrate their fitness-to-practise through a process of revalidation.[2] One option being considered in GB is that continuing professional development (CPD) records will form a part of the evidence submitted for revalidation, similar to the system in New Zealand.[3] At present, pharmacy professionals must make a minimum of nine CPD entries per annum from 1 March 2009 using the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) CPD framework. Our aim was to explore the applicability of new revalidation standards within the current CPD framework. We also wanted to review the content of CPD portfolios to assess strengths and qualities and identify any information gaps for the purpose of revalidation.

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.

A framework for assessing continuing professional development activities for satisfying pharmacy revalidation requirements

The United Kingdom’s pharmacy regulator contemplated using continuing professional development (CPD) in pharmacy revalidation in 2009, simultaneously asking pharmacy professionals to demonstrate the value of their CPD by showing its relevance and impact. The idea of linking new CPD requirements with revalidation was yet to be explored. Our aim was to develop and validate a framework to guide pharmacy professionals to select CPD activities that are relevant to their work and to produce a score sheet that would make it possible to quantify the impact and relevance of CPD. METHODS: We adapted an existing risk matrix, producing a CPD framework consisting of relevance and impact matrices. Concepts underpinning the framework were refined through feedback from five pharmacist teacher-practitioners. We then asked seven pharmacists to rate the relevance of the framework’s individual elements on a 4-point scale to determine content validity. We explored views about the framework through focus groups with six and interviews with 17 participants who had used it formally in a study. RESULTS: The framework’s content validity index was 0.91. Feedback about the framework related to three themes of penetrability of the framework, usefulness to completion of CPD, and advancement of CPD records for the purpose of revalidation. DISCUSSION: The framework can help professionals better select CPD activities prospectively, and makes assessment of CPD more objective by allowing quantification, which could be helpful for revalidation. We believe the framework could potentially help other health professionals with better management of their CPD irrespective of their field of practice.

British pharmacy professionals’ beliefs and participation in continuing professional development: a review of the literature.

Objectives Continuing professional development (CPD) has potential to be useful in pharmacy revalidation but past uptake and attitudes to CPD in Great Britain (GB) need to be mapped. This review examines published literature to chart the participation and beliefs of pharmacy professionals towards CPD in GB in a decade that had seen a formal transition from continuing education to CPD. Methods A comprehensive review of the published literature was conducted to identify studies of the uptake of, or attitudes towards, CPD cross different sectors of pharmacy in GB from 2000 to 2010. Key findings Twenty-two studies were included and analysed, including 13 research papers, six conference papers, two news items reporting survey outcomes and one commissioned study. Eight barriers to CPD were identified as: time, financial costs and resource issues, understanding of CPD, facilitation and support for CPD, motivation and interest in CPD, attitudes towards compulsory CPD, system constraints, and technical problems. Pharmacy professionals on the whole agreed with the principle of engaging with CPD but there was little evidence to suggest widespread and wholehearted acceptance and uptake of CPD, essential for revalidation. Conclusions If CPD is to succeed, people's beliefs and attitudes must be addressed by recognising and modifying perceived barriers through a combination of regulatory, professional, work-related and personal channels. A number of recommendations are made. Direct experience of effective CPD in the absence of perceived barriers could impact on personal development, career development and patient benefit thus strengthening personal beliefs in the value of CPD in an iterative manner.

British pharmacy professionals' beliefs and participation in continuing professional development: a review of the literature

Objectives:  Continuing professional development (CPD) has potential to be useful in pharmacy revalidation but past uptake and attitudes to CPD in Great Britain (GB) need to be mapped. This review examines published literature to chart the participation and beliefs of pharmacy professionals towards CPD in GB in a decade that had seen a formal transition from continuing education to CPD. Methods:  A comprehensive review of the published literature was conducted to identify studies of the uptake of, or attitudes towards, CPD cross different sectors of pharmacy in GB from 2000 to 2010. Key findings:  Twenty-two studies were included and analysed, including 13 research papers, six conference papers, two news items reporting survey outcomes and one commissioned study. Eight barriers to CPD were identified as: time, financial costs and resource issues, understanding of CPD, facilitation and support for CPD, motivation and interest in CPD, attitudes towards compulsory CPD, system constraints, and technical problems. Pharmacy professionals on the whole agreed with the principle of engaging with CPD but there was little evidence to suggest widespread and wholehearted acceptance and uptake of CPD, essential for revalidation. Conclusions:  If CPD is to succeed, people's beliefs and attitudes must be addressed by recognising and modifying perceived barriers through a combination of regulatory, professional, work-related and personal channels. A number of recommendations are made. Direct experience of effective CPD in the absence of perceived barriers could impact on personal development, career development and patient benefit thus strengthening personal beliefs in the value of CPD in an iterative manner.

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.